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.

117 results for “section 68”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi668Karnataka461Mumbai363Chennai138Bangalore130Kolkata117Jaipur96Ahmedabad74Hyderabad47Indore40Cochin39Chandigarh33Nagpur32Surat30Pune27Lucknow25Rajkot16Calcutta16Guwahati14Raipur13Telangana10SC9Agra8Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur6Cuttack5Amritsar4Rajasthan4Patna4Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Panaji1Jabalpur1Dehradun1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 115J71Addition to Income65Section 14864Section 143(3)59Section 14747Section 14A46Section 6846Deduction32Disallowance30Section 40

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

section 68 could be made. e. Commissioner of income­tax, Jaipur­II v. Morani Automotives (P) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 473 (Rajasthan) Assessing Officer made certain addition on account of unexplained share capital contribution and unsecured loans-Assessee submitted all details, confirmations, returns, affidavits, bank statements, etc. from various persons in respect of share capital contribution as also for loan advanced

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S POSITIVE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 139(1)22
Depreciation22

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2274/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 68

239 ITR 77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies upon the assessee to prove the noted three conditions. In CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) 3 Positive Properties Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 the Hon'ble High Court held that "it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GATEWAY ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 68

239 ITR 77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies upon the assessee to prove the noted three conditions. In CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) the Hon'ble High Court held that "it is for the assessee to prove the 3 M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 identity of the creditors

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

Section 131Section 68

section 68 of the Act is discharged by the assessee only when the assessee proves three things to the satisfaction of the AO viz, identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) has held that mere

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

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

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

68 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

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

68 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S GARIMA ADVISORY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 386/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 68

section 68 as reproduced hereinabove, it is crystal clear that additions u/s 68 of the act would relate only to sums found credited in the books of account of an assessee for the previous year in which it was introduced. There is no dispute that share application money was received in the A.Y. 2011-12 as evident

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

68 of the Act particularly when the purchase of shares was not doubted in the earlier assessment years. The ld. CIT (A) relied on a series of decisions as extracted hereinabove while deleting the addition. The ld. CIT (A) noted that the shares were purchased by the assessee company during the financial year 2010-11 and have not been doubted

M/S. BMS SALES PVT. LTD., ,PURULIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

68 of the\nAct on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to establish\nidentity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the\nmoney received through cash trail. The CIT(A) in course of hearing the appeal\ncalled for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and in the said remand\nreport the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. CARELINK VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1752/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1752/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate
Section 131oSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that in the cases where the credit does not relate to the assessment year under consideration, that is, A.Y.2012-13, and having beenbrought forward from the earlier assessment years, it cannot be added during the assessment year under consideration, evenwhen it is unexplained. As such, the addition for the share application

BRGD SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

ITA 1403/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

68 of\nthe Act on the ground of being bogus and Rs. 2,30,00,000/- was\nadded on account of sale of investments by the assessee of unlisted\nequity shares by the\namalgamating company M/S Balgopal Tie-up\nPvt Ltd. The said amalgamation was effected vide order of the\nNational Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench vide order dated\n20.09.2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRGD SPONGE & IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

68 of\nthe Act on the ground of being bogus and Rs. 2,30,00,000/- was\nadded on account of sale of investments by the assessee of unlisted\nequity shares by the amalgamating company M/S Balgopal Tie-up\nPvt Ltd. The said amalgamation was effected vide order of the\nNational Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench vide order dated\n20.09.2022

M/S. SONATA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 753/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 677/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited......Respondent Ground Floor, 18, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700009 [Pan: Aakcs7085G] -A N D - I.T.A. No. 753/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

section 68 of the Act, however, the purpose of this huge cash deposits and withdrawals is not explained at any stage. 12. As regards the unsecured loan through Banking channel is concerned, the assessee has placed various documents of all the alleged cash credits to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors but the genuineness

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SONATA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 677/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 677/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited......Respondent Ground Floor, 18, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700009 [Pan: Aakcs7085G] -A N D - I.T.A. No. 753/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

section 68 of the Act, however, the purpose of this huge cash deposits and withdrawals is not explained at any stage. 12. As regards the unsecured loan through Banking channel is concerned, the assessee has placed various documents of all the alleged cash credits to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors but the genuineness

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

239 Taxman 456 (Kar) on similar set of facts and circumstances had held as under:- The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law deleting the addition of Rs. 81,40,232 on account of cessation

SUPERDEAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Wad 5(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito, Ward 5(1), Associates, Advocates Sidha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-70069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7472E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

68 of the Act. 04. The ld. CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee company has sold unlisted shares which were not invested in real companies and therefore, sale consideration realized during the year was apparently bogus in nature to provide accommodation entries only. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the principle

PREM PRASAD,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

section 68 of the Act. Then, the learned CIT (A) was duty- bound to reduce the same from the amount of sales as the same does not represent the sale but unexplained cash credit. As such, the same amount cannot be held taxable twice as per the wish of the learned CIT (A). In our considered view the action

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2358/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

239\nNirmal Dey\n5,462,047\n2,831.966\n4,282.675\n1,878,484\n1,445.927\n807,941\n108:359\n1,220,306\n18.298.469\nRajendra Bhalixia\n5.462,047\n2,831,966\n4,282,675\n1,878,484\n1,445.927\n807,941\n108.339\n1,220,506\n18.037,906\nSunder Bhalotia\n5.0-43,381\n3:086,448\n4,282,675\n1,878,481\n1.445.927

KRYPTON DISTRIBUTORS LLP (EARLIER KNOWN AS KRYPTON DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Krypton Distributors Llp (Earlier Known As Krypton Ito, Ward 12(1), Distributors P. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Flat No.1A, 1, Abdul Rasul Chowringhee Square, Vs. Avenue, Kalighat, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700026, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5298G Assessee By : Shri Manoj Katuruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Katuruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 vide order dated 16th April, 2025, in the case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited, which has been followed in the case of ACIT Vs. Pawanputra Krypton Distributors

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No

ITA 1591/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Alam, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40

68,000/- paid to L & T Finance Ltd. 3.1. The Learned AR stated that the assessee is engaged in the business of carrying out transportation of coal handling and unloading and excavation job on contract basis. He informed that during the course of hearing, an addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act was made by the Learned AO towards