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.

68 results for “section 68”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi259Mumbai200Bangalore154Ahmedabad87Jaipur85Kolkata68Hyderabad49Lucknow43Pune38Chennai36Chandigarh36Calcutta34Indore21Karnataka19Rajkot17Visakhapatnam15Raipur14Nagpur10Cochin9Agra8Surat8Amritsar6Allahabad6SC6Varanasi5Telangana4Patna4Guwahati3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Section 12A65Exemption44Section 26341Section 1139Section 6834Addition to Income27Section 10(38)22Section 14820Section 35(1)(ii)

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

68 on the ground that the respondent-assessee has not maintained books and the bank statement cannot be treated as books is self-destructive in itself since, he has admitted that books of account are maintained and the data have been extracted from those very books of account and based on this data, addition has been made. [Para 32] ■ Even

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

18
Disallowance13
Bogus/Accommodation Entry12

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 724/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

section 12A(2) of the Act cannot be held to be retrospective in nature and hence cannot be applied for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The ld AR argued that the issue under dispute is already settled by the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of various tribunals :- A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 a) Decision

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 723/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

section 12A(2) of the Act cannot be held to be retrospective in nature and hence cannot be applied for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The ld AR argued that the issue under dispute is already settled by the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of various tribunals :- A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 a) Decision

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 249(4)

12A of the Act nor was there any notification allowing exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act. The AO was therefore of the view that the assessee could not get the benefit of exemption from taxation of its income u/s 11 of the Act. The AO also observed that since the assessee did not file the return of income within

ANJANA CHAUDHURY,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIR. (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 881/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 68

Section 2(12A) of the Act and hence, it needs to be clearly pin-pointed whether at all the preliminary requirement u/s 68

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

ITA 464/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

Section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. 8. We hold that the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court would squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Infact the assessee’s case herein falls on a much better footing than the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

ITA 465/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

Section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. 8. We hold that the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court would squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Infact the assessee’s case herein falls on a much better footing than the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Section 68, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed" 8. Applying the proposition of law laid down in the case law to the facts of the case, we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act for the reasons cited above.” 12. Under identical circumstances, similar view was taken

SUPER IRON FOUNDRY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 36, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 270/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under Section 133 (6) of the Act which fact

DCIT EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA vs. B P PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 637/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.637/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2022-2023) Dcit Exemptions Circle-1(1), Vs B P Poddar Foundation For Education, Kolkata 18, Poddar Court, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aaatb 5418 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y.2022- 2023. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 26 Days For Which The Revenue Has Filed The Necessary Condonation Petition. The Reasons Given Are Plausible & Same Are Accepted. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Has Filed His Written Submission Which Read As Under :- Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "A" Bench. Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide registration dated 26/02/1998, and has been regularly assessed as a Charitable Trust. For the year under appeal being the A.Y. 2022-23, the trust also obtained provisional approval under section 10(23C)(via) vide Form 10AC dated 30/09/2021 for A.V.s 2022-23 to 2024-25. 2.2. The Assesee-Trust

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 152/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

section 56(2) and it was not registered u/s 12A or 12AA of the Act.” 12 IT(S.S)A Nos. 13,14 & 15/Kol/2025 I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15&2015-16 Satyam Sureka & Ors. 12. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 626/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

12A, Room No. 102, Shyamkunj, Annapurna Apartment, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700071. (PAN: AABCE0588P) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2023 For the Appellant Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR For the Respondent Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Both these appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Ld.CIT

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 625/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

12A, Room No. 102, Shyamkunj, Annapurna Apartment, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700071. (PAN: AABCE0588P) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2023 For the Appellant Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR For the Respondent Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Both these appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Ld.CIT

I.T.O WD - 9(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANAS MOITRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 448/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

68 requires that there is a credit in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit is of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit; or the explanation offered by the assessee is not in the opinion of the assessing authority, satisfactory. Then the sum so credited

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

12A. read with section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 are predicate offences. • Enforcement Directorate should then be informed to take action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the predicate offences. 5.6.1 On perusal of the records available, it is found that the scrip of 'UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD is amongst the 84 penny

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

12A. read with section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 are predicate offences. • Enforcement Directorate should then be informed to take action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the predicate offences. 5.6.1 On perusal of the records available, it is found that the scrip of 'UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD is amongst the 84 penny

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

12A. read with section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 are predicate offences. • Enforcement Directorate should then be informed to take action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the predicate offences. 5.6.1 On perusal of the records available, it is found that the scrip of 'UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD is amongst the 84 penny

REETA LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

12A. read with section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 are predicate offences. • Enforcement Directorate should then be informed to take action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the predicate offences. 5.6.1 On perusal of the records available, it is found that the scrip of 'UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD is amongst the 84 penny

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

12A. read with section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 are predicate offences. • Enforcement Directorate should then be informed to take action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the predicate offences. 5.6.1 On perusal of the records available, it is found that the scrip of 'UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD is amongst the 84 penny

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

12A. read with section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 are predicate offences. • Enforcement Directorate should then be informed to take action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the predicate offences. 5.6.1 On perusal of the records available, it is found that the scrip of 'UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD is amongst the 84 penny