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.

833 results for “section 68”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,564Mumbai9,418Kolkata3,077Bangalore2,581Ahmedabad2,210Chennai2,150Jaipur1,537Hyderabad1,411Pune1,319Surat940Chandigarh900Indore833Karnataka799Cochin635Rajkot485Raipur459Visakhapatnam418Lucknow297Nagpur288Amritsar263Agra248Cuttack241Guwahati223Telangana161Jodhpur146Patna142Ranchi136Calcutta124SC121Jabalpur118Panaji109Dehradun104Allahabad103Varanasi50Rajasthan22Kerala13Orissa11Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand4Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 68127Section 143(3)93Addition to Income88Section 10(38)85Section 143(2)40Section 26340Long Term Capital Gains36Section 14726Disallowance26

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

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

68 to Section 69C the highlighting part which is common is that if “the assessee offers no explanation about the nature of source of” either cash credits, investment, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article investment and expenditure. ITANo.16/Ind/2019 Rajesh Kumar Bajaj 13. Let us examine the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey in reply

Showing 1–20 of 833 · Page 1 of 42

...
Section 115B17
Exemption17
Penny Stock15

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 226/IND/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

section 194C(7). Thus, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are also dismissed. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 17. Ground No.6 of the Revenue reads as under:- “6. On the facts and circumstances

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 227/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

section 194C(7). Thus, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are also dismissed. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 17. Ground No.6 of the Revenue reads as under:- “6. On the facts and circumstances

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 235/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

section 194C(7). Thus, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are also dismissed. CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 17. Ground No.6 of the Revenue reads as under:- “6. On the facts and circumstances

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

6. Per contra, the ld AR drawn our reference to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Satish Kumar Goyal vs JCIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 382 (Agra) wherein it was held that business losses of the assessee could be set off under section 71 against the income assessable under section 68

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)

6 of the assessment order]. The assessing officer then allowed credit of additional income as already accepted by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 10,10,00,000/- [correct amount actually offered was of Rs.10,14,95,122/-] and balance amount of Rs. 14,07,74,248/- [Rs. 24,17,74,248/- minus

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

6 of 29 Supremo India Ltd. Page 7 of 29 the assessee but it is one and common nature of stock found during the survey except the quantity of the stock on physical verification was found to be excess in comparison to the stock recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, there is no separable identifiable stock found during

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 185/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case in hand, additional income was offered during search & survey and the same has been taken into consideration while filing regular return, of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed at returned income and no fresh addition

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 954/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

68 of the IT Act 1961 has beautifully analyzed the issue of applicability of amendments and laid 4 Pumarth Properties down the above principles while examining the issue. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the applicability of amendment in section 115BBE(2) w.e.f. 04.01.2017 in the light of principles laid down in the decision as discussed supra

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

6. Once the assessee at the first instance at the time of survey itself has explained the surrendered income as business income of the assessee which is on account of discrepancy in the value as determined by the valuer in comparison to the value recorded in the books of account then the said difference offered to tax by the assessee

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

68 of the Act was done as (treating the opening balance as peak credit basis), which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 15. It appears from the record that before the Ld.AO, the appellant duly furnished the details of its creditors. Further that, by and under notice under Section 133(6

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

ITA 983/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.09.2022
Section 143(3)Section 68

6. Upon careful reading to the entire orders, it appears that merely on the basis of the AIR information, the case was reopened and addition has been made under Section 68

THE ITO 2 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK CITY HOMES P LTD,, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link City Homes Indore Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch5920K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

6) / 131 by Nilesh Jain is not within the control of assessee and that is why the assessee has even written to Ld. AO to proceed at his cost. Ld. AR has also invited our attention to the verdict of section 68

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

6 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See. Parimisetti Seetharamamma (supra) at P. 5361. But, in view of Section 68

THE I.T.O. 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK BUILDCON P LTD , INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link Buildcon Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch7180H Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

6) / 131 by Nilesh Jain is not within the control of assessee and that is why the assessee has even written to Ld. AO to proceed at his cost. Ld. AR has also invited our attention to the verdict of section 68

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

6 as under: “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68 of the Act of 1961 says

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

Section 68 of the Act for ready reference: “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited

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

68 and not u/s 56(2)(viib ). 1.2 The AO has not made addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) but. has discussed the section in detail We have raised ground no. 1 to keep this matter alive. If any adjudication is to be given on this issue, We may be given some time to give separate submission on this

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

68. 9. During assessment-proceeding, when the AO show-caused assessee to explain the justification of issuance of shares having face value of Rs. 10/- at a premium of Rs. 990/-, the assessee filed reply dated 24.12.2019 which is re-produced by AO in Para 3.1-3.2 of assessment-order as under: Page 6 of 44 M/s Decent Industries

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)

section 68 of the Act was not applicable as there was no cash credit during the year under consideration: > In the case of Asst. CIT Vs. Ats Promoters & Builders (P.) Ltd. [2015], (5:7 taxmann.com 21) (All.), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that: "6