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.

14 results for “section 68”+ Section 158Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai137Bangalore64Delhi56Jaipur25Chandigarh24Hyderabad23Kolkata14Pune14Karnataka7Nagpur6Guwahati5Lucknow3Rajkot2Indore1SC1

Key Topics

Section 13214Addition to Income14Search & Seizure14Section 268A13Limitation/Time-bar13

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 960/KOL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 960/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2000-01 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, -Vs.- M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr8968E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158B

158B(b) is a charging provision and that provision of Chapter XIV-B applies only to those income which can be brought within the definition of undisclosed income. The method as to how undisclosed income is to be computed has been given under section 158BB. The computation has to be on the basis of books of account or documents

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. 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 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 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, 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. 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-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. 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 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. 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. 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