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.

16 results for “section 68”+ Section 268Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi276Jabalpur50Ahmedabad22Mumbai16Cochin16Kolkata16Jaipur14Nagpur3Hyderabad2Chennai2Visakhapatnam2Lucknow1SC1Telangana1Indore1

Key Topics

Addition to Income16Section 268A14Section 13214Search & Seizure14Limitation/Time-bar13Section 684Section 2503Section 153A3Section 1313Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOKATA vs. MAHADEV DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1317/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: or at the time of appellate proceedings.”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 268ASection 68

section 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2018. 1.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the order by deleting the amount Rs. 90,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 without verifying it properly. 2 Mahadev Dealers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUPATI CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

2
Survey u/s 133A2

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

ITA 1295/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Tribunal 07.06.2024 The Authorization dated 07.06.2024 of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central-1, Kolkata was received in this office for filing further appeal certifying that the Appellate Order dated 18.03.2024 in appeal no. CIT(A)-Kolkata- 12/10694/2018-19 in the case of Raghupati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. PAN-AACCR8354F for the AY 2011-12 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-26, Kolkata was received in his office on 18.03.2024. 07.06.2024 Accordingly, appeal on e-filing portal of ITAT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT, Central 3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., by holding that additions are not linked to any incriminating material 3 Raghupati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. : AY: 2011-12 without appreciating the statement of Entry Operators taken on oath

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

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

268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of low tax effect than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). 3. Even on merits, since common facts are involved in all the appeals, hence, our decision arrived at on remaining appeals will also apply to these three appeals also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. LAKHOTIA DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1320/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act in relation to the unsecured loans obtained and duly recorded by the appellant in his regular books of accounts. The AO has also made an addition of Rs. 3,43,127/- u/s 69C of the Act towards the disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. It is observed that both the unsecured loans and the interest thereon