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.

10 results for “section 68”+ Section 56(2)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai100Delhi51Bangalore47Chennai35Hyderabad11Chandigarh10Jaipur10Cochin8Cuttack8Pune6Kolkata5Visakhapatnam3Nagpur3SC2Amritsar1Ahmedabad1Allahabad1Raipur1Rajkot1Guwahati1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 56(1)10Section 143(3)9Section 409Addition to Income9Section 1486Section 565Section 56(2)(viib)5Section 684Section 144TDS

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

68 of the Act. The AO invoked the provisions of sec 56(1) of the Act which reads as under:- ‘’56. Income from other sources. (1) “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under the Act shall be chargeable to income tax under the ITA 696 & 1081/JP/2018_ 12 head.” Income from other sources

4
Disallowance4
Survey u/s 133A3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

68 of the Act. The AO invoked the provisions of sec 56(1) of the Act which reads as under:- ‘’56. Income from other sources. (1) “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under the Act shall be chargeable to income tax under the ITA 696 & 1081/JP/2018_ 12 head.” Income from other sources

M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115BSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 and section 115BBE are not applicable in this case being the addition made under section 56(2)(viib), however, the ld. CIT (A) has not accepted the valuation of the shares as per the Valuation Report of the Registered Valuer whereby the value was determined by adopting the fair market value of the assets of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 736/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 148Section 2Section 56Section 56(1)Section 68

68 of the Act as only share premium was added to the income of the appellant. (iii) It would be appropriate to examine the applicability of the provisions of section 56 of the Act to the facts of the instant case under consideration, which reads as under:- "56. Income from other sources. (I) “Income of every kind which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

56(2)(viia) of the Act to the declared income of the appellant. The assessee objected to the proposed addition on the ground that during the search no incriminating material indicating any undisclosed income for the year under consideration was found, which is also apparently clear from the assessment order itself. Further it was contended since there is no incriminating

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 1/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 116/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 279/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

RADHEY RAM GODARA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

viia) Further, the appellant has not produced any evidence which may prove the creditworthiness of Shri Mahaveer Prasad. It has been held in a number of cases by the Judicial Authorities that transactions through banking channels are not sacrosanct. Therefore, looking to the 15 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur total facts and circumstances

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

56 ITR 114 (Bom) : TC53R.145, Volkart Bros. vs. ITO (1967) 65 ITR 179 (Bom) : TC53R.168 and P.M. Bharucha & Co. vs. G.S. Venkatesan, ITO (1969) 74 ITR 513 (Guj) : TC33R.480 relied on. 13 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat vs DCIT Circle –Sikar 2.5 In the case Coates Of India Ltd. vs. DCIT & ORS (1995) 214 ITR 0498 (Kol. HC) Assessment—Rectification