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.

349 results for “section 68”+ Section 132(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,483 Mumbai2,703 Bangalore729 Jaipur647 Chennai606 Hyderabad561 Karnataka507 Ahmedabad472 Kolkata349 Chandigarh314 Pune284 Indore227 Cochin179 Surat174 Raipur157 Visakhapatnam149 Nagpur127 Rajkot105 Guwahati101 Amritsar65 Calcutta55 Lucknow52 Telangana50 Allahabad48 Agra46 Patna42 Cuttack34 Jodhpur32 Ranchi27 SC26 Dehradun17 Jabalpur11 Orissa8 Rajasthan8 Kerala6 Varanasi6 Gauhati3 Himachal Pradesh1 Panaji1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Uttarakhand1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148148 Section 147109 Addition to Income90 Section 6871 Section 13266 Section 153A61 Section 143(3)49 Section 139(1)32 Section 148A32 Search & Seizure

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2334/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 349 · Page 1 of 18

...

31

Unexplained Cash Credit21

Limitation/Time-bar21

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed

ITAT Kolkata

27 Dec 2022

AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

4) of Rs.7,00,000/-. Asst. Year: 2010-11 Returned income under Rs. 16,68,761/- section 139 Returned income under Rs.21,89,190/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 6,00,000/- section 132

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

4) of Rs.7,00,000/-. Asst. Year: 2010-11 Returned income under Rs. 16,68,761/- section 139 Returned income under Rs.21,89,190/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 6,00,000/- section 132

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2333/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 900/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 886/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. PRAFUL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 897/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 268A

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

4 crores was paid. The AO has recorded that this 'Banka ji' was identified, post search as one Subhas Kumar Banka, who in his statement u/s 131 has admitted to having sold a company, M/S Satyam Investment and Finance Ltd to Krishna Kumar Singhania, the main person of the present appellant. Having made the above reference, there is no further

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “Basant Bansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, offered a summary