BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

344 results for “section 68”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,649Mumbai2,864Bangalore1,090Chennai825Ahmedabad737Karnataka652Kolkata647Jaipur615Hyderabad581Indore344Pune340Chandigarh299Surat250Cochin227Raipur139Visakhapatnam111Agra107Lucknow104Rajkot98Cuttack97Nagpur93Telangana88Calcutta74Jabalpur64Amritsar63Jodhpur53Guwahati50Allahabad50SC46Panaji37Dehradun28Patna25Ranchi23Varanasi18Rajasthan9Kerala8Orissa7Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 6872Addition to Income65Section 143(3)58Disallowance27Section 143(2)26Section 26326Section 56(2)(viib)22Section 153A19TDS19Section 10(38)

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. He further made addition of Rs.1,29,00,31,341/- to the total income being the outstanding amount of sundry creditors appearing in the appellant's balance sheet as on 01.04.2013 under Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 344 · Page 1 of 18

...
18
Section 15416
Limitation/Time-bar10

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D." 10. In light of above, given the fact that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 11BBE in the instant case, the provisions of sub-section (2) to section 11BBE are equally applicable. The amendment

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal, CA & Shri PankajFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

56,20,940/- including additional income surrendered of Rs. 10,14,95,122/- and Rs. 1,20,02,793/- during the course of search and survey proceeding respectively. The AO calculated the difference in the valuation of stock to the tune of Rs. 24,17,74,248/- at the time of search and upon allowing the credit of additional income

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

Section 40aSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialties (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered this issue in para 8 to 11 as under: “8. We have to notice the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India (Taxes) that if Section 68

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

56(2)(viib) and section 68. However, be opted to go for addition U/s 68 and not u/s 56

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

section 68 is very much illegal. Ld. DR for assessee has though relied upon statements of Shri Anand Sharma and the observations made by AO in various paras of assessment-order (as narrated by us in foregoing paras of this order) but, however, could not controvert these vital points as noted by us. Page 27 of 44 M/s Decent

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 503/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

56,25,000/- + Rs.1,29,39,210/-) may be\nconsidered as unexplained credit or unexplained liability within the meaning\nof section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 502/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

56,25,000/- + Rs.1,29,39,210/-) may be\nconsidered as unexplained credit or unexplained liability within the meaning\nof section 68

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Singh Gangwar, Rep. of the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 115bSection 1ISection 69

56,02,000/- u/s 69 and accordingly confirm the same. The ground No.2 and 3 are thus, dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On going through the records of the assessee’s case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

ITA 396/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 68

56,86,839/- was due to theappellant. The amount as due from M/s Shri Mangal Murtee Tradex P Limited was shown as loans & advances in the book of the appellant. The assessing officer added two cheques as received from this company by invoking the provision of section 68

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

ITA 380/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

68 of the Act at Rs.2,76,42,000/- 1. Prior to the impugned year, assessee had given advances through banking channel to various parties for purchase of land. Assessee submits that as the advances were given through banking channel this itself proves the genuineness of the initiation of transaction. 2. Assessee contends that the funds transferred or given

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 460/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & shri GaganFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

56,79,235/- has been made out of which the impugned addition of Rs.22,54,71,970/- under Section 68

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 290/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & shri GaganFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

56,79,235/- has been made out of which the impugned addition of Rs.22,54,71,970/- under Section 68

EXTOL WIND LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (3), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniextol Wind Ltd. Ito Ward 1(3) 104, Jahangirbad Barkhedi Bhopal Vs. Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8607 N Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 56(2)(viib)

56 or section 68 are applicable in case of the share premium received by the assesse and therefore, the judgment

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

ITA 987/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

ITA 889/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

ITA 206/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

ITA 474/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

ITA 60/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

ITA 61/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition