THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act. Until the route is formulated and specified by the State Government under Section

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 68 of the Act only to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/-, while upholding the additions under Section 68

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

section 68 of the act when the purchasers of the preference shares had not established their credit worthiness or the genuineness

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 68 does not apply. f. The assesssee also submitted that out of total creditors amounting of Rs.29,75,621/- shown

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

section 68 of the Act when all the conditions for invoking said section are satisfied in present case and when

SRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,K.NATARAJAN

Section 41(1) and 68 which were made by mere accepting the statements of the creditors who had not been

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 68 does not get attracted when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 4.6. The Learned Commissioner

SRI SANJAY G KHENY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Writ Petition No. 51002/2019(Cs-Res) Between:

section 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959(for short ‘the Act’) after conclusion of proceedings under section

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Sections 68 and 69 of the Finance Act. 5 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 68 of the Act and the learned Tribunal on an appeal though held that the additions in the hands

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BOSCH LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, 25 if a document

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. AURA JEWELS

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 68 of the Act. 3. The respondent [Assessee] is engaged in the business of retail trading of jewelry, gold

D.K. POULTRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner

DODDAGULI KENCHE GOWDA RAJU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1) (1)

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

section (9), the amended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68 of 2024 provisions, including sub-section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

Section 68 of the Act for Rs.15,70,650/- and treated sale proceeds of bio- compost of Rs.9,73,02,533/- as unaccounted

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income of Rs.10,72,247/- (iv) Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being