Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

492 results for “section 68”+ Section 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,839 Mumbai2,279 Bangalore821 Karnataka621 Chennai614 Ahmedabad583 Jaipur492 Kolkata455 Hyderabad435 Indore312 Pune310 Surat262 Chandigarh256 Cochin220 Raipur106 Visakhapatnam104 Agra99 Rajkot89 Telangana79 Cuttack71 Nagpur67 Jabalpur62 Calcutta61 Lucknow52 Amritsar48 SC44 Allahabad35 Ranchi34 Guwahati32 Panaji30 Jodhpur25 Dehradun13 Patna10 Orissa8 Varanasi7 Rajasthan7 Andhra Pradesh1 Kerala1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 153A126 Addition to Income86 Section 143(3)81 Section 6846 Search & Seizure32 Section 14730 Section 13229 Section 133A28 Section 14826 Undisclosed Income

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 492 · Page 1 of 25

...

19

Section 143(2)18

ITAT Jaipur

10 Oct 2024

AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nSh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Income\nTax Act and therefore in the assessment completed addition of Rs. 1,73,56,000/-\nis made.\n3.4.12 Accordingly, the A.O. referred to provision u/s 68 of the I. T. Act and also\nrelied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Durga\nPrasad More

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 are not applicable in this case because there are proper entries of sale, SBNs/cash received against sale of Gold Ornaments and Jewellery and cash balance etc. in the regular books of account of the assessee. 8. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the cash/SBNs deposited by the appellant

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 115BSection 132(1)

77,10,650, out of which Rs. 89.50 lacs pertained to income surrendered during the course of search. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. Ground No. 2-3: Invoking provisions of Section 115BBE 1. ASSESSING OFFICER& COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1.1. During the course of search assessee, on his own, offered Rs. 89,05,480 for tax, for the year

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 115BSection 132(1)

77,10,650, out of which Rs. 89.50 lacs pertained to income surrendered during the course of search. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. Ground No. 2-3: Invoking provisions of Section 115BBE 1. ASSESSING OFFICER& COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1.1. During the course of search assessee, on his own, offered Rs. 89,05,480 for tax, for the year

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per the discussion

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per the discussion

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loan taken during the year from 53 parties for which the Appellant could not furnish the balance confirmation on the ground that the Appellant had failed to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions of such unsecured loan and further made an addition on account of disallowance

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

77,100/-. Now, here it is imperative to analyse section 68 of\nthe Act, which has been applied in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nMr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: \nMrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

77,100/-. Now, here it is imperative to analyse section 68 of\nthe Act, which has been applied in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

77,100/-. Now, here it is imperative to analyse section 68 of\nthe Act, which has been applied in the case

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per se 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld. This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 5 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’8.5 I have considered the facts

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per se 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld. This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 5 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’8.5 I have considered the facts

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea for peak credit, unabsorbed depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 113/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

77,60,742/- 24.14% 3,09,42,496/- Yes 2,68,920/- 2016-17 1,16,91,678/- 24.14% 2,72,61,475/- Yes 2,19,09,882/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assesse preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which were partly allowed. Decision of ld. CIT(A) on various issues is summarized as under

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

77,60,742/- 24.14% 3,09,42,496/- Yes 2,68,920/- 2016-17 1,16,91,678/- 24.14% 2,72,61,475/- Yes 2,19,09,882/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assesse preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which were partly allowed. Decision of ld. CIT(A) on various issues is summarized as under

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 175/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

77,60,742/- 24.14% 3,09,42,496/- Yes 2,68,920/- 2016-17 1,16,91,678/- 24.14% 2,72,61,475/- Yes 2,19,09,882/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assesse preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which were partly allowed. Decision of ld. CIT(A) on various issues is summarized as under

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

77,60,742/- 24.14% 3,09,42,496/- Yes 2,68,920/- 2016-17 1,16,91,678/- 24.14% 2,72,61,475/- Yes 2,19,09,882/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assesse preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which were partly allowed. Decision of ld. CIT(A) on various issues is summarized as under

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 114/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

77,60,742/- 24.14% 3,09,42,496/- Yes 2,68,920/- 2016-17 1,16,91,678/- 24.14% 2,72,61,475/- Yes 2,19,09,882/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assesse preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which were partly allowed. Decision of ld. CIT(A) on various issues is summarized as under