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.

24 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur232Delhi161Mumbai121Chandigarh96Bangalore80Chennai64Indore57Surat50Ahmedabad48Pune48Hyderabad45Cochin25Kolkata24Agra22Visakhapatnam17Rajkot17Amritsar15Raipur12Ranchi12Guwahati10Jodhpur9Jabalpur7Cuttack6Allahabad6Karnataka3Lucknow3SC3Patna2Panaji1Varanasi1Nagpur1Kerala1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 6823Section 143(3)15Addition to Income13Section 271A12Section 26312Section 25011Section 1549Section 115B8Section 11(1)(a)8Condonation of Delay

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1396/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

5
Undisclosed Income4
Penalty4
ITA 1395/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
22 Mar 2024
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

ITA 672/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous

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)

68 was unjustified rely on the ground that lenders were engaged in providing accommodation entries. Besides, barring relying on the statements, the AO has not brought any positive evidence against the assessee. It has been consistently been held by the courts that mere statements per se without any corroborative nave no evidentiary value. The fact has consistently been recognized

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 207/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Steel Authority Of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.......….Appellant Ispat Cooperative House, 12, Charu Chandra Place Ispat Co-Operative House, Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033. [Pan: Aadas9699B] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata..……...…..…....................……........……............…...…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 20, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 28, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

68,section 69, section 69A, section 69B,section 69C or section I.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year

MANAS KUMAR NAGURI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/KOL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 68

68. The Assessee also submitted to the AO that even provisions of section 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Act are not applicable

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 791/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 68, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D of the Act. We have also perused provisions of sections 68,69,69A to 69D of the Act and find

SRI SANTANU CHATTERJEE,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1920/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1920/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1(2), Burdwan C/O Benu Radio Product, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Baidyapur More, Opp.Uti Bank Compound, Burdwan Po-Kalna, Dist-Burdwan- 713101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhpc 8020 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan, In Appeal No.365/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd-1(2)/Bwn/2010-11, Dated 26.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.06.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,04,640/- . Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(2) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Undisclosed Income U/S.69 At Rs.11,04,790/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Had Come To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had 2 Sri Santanu Chatterjee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,04,790/- In Axis Bank Kalana Bearing Account

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

68 is not applicable, the cash deposit in the bank can be asked to be explained by the assessee under section 69 or section 69B

HIRANMOY DAS,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT, ASANSOL

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

ITA 905/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: 25.04.2022. 3. That There Is A Delay Of 728 (Seven Hundred & Twenty-Eight) Days In Filing The Appeal.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263

sections 68, 69,69A,69B,69C and 69D of the Act. Since the Ld. AO has not used any of these

PEERLESS HOTELS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 545/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 545/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Peerless Hotels Limited,..........................Appellant 12, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aabcp9484D] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit (Sr. D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2023

Section 143(2)Section 14A

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, then no computation of tax under section 115BBE was required

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

Section 115BBE of the Act was brought into Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017 not allowing set off of any loss against the additions made u/s 68, 69, 69A, 69B

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ATIBIR HI-TECH PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1747/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, Circle – 3(1) Kolkata...........................................................................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Squar, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 19, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………….......................Respondent Block-7B, 7Th Floor, Abdul Hamid Street, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan : Aabca 4466 C] C.O. No. 118/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1747/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………..................Cross-Objector Block-7B, 7Th Floor, Abdul Hamid Street, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan : Aabca 4466 C] D.C.I.T, Circle – 3(1) Kolkata.......................................................................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Squar, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 19, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri D.S. Damle, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 16, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 11, Kolkata Dated 04.042017 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 118/Kol/2017. 2 Ita No. 1747/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 118/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Section 41(1)

Section 115BBE does not allow set off of income assessed as cash credit u/s 68 against the loss under any other head as per the provisions of Sec. 71. The legislature in all its wisdom has decided not to allow set off of loss under any provisions of this Act w.e.f. 01.04.2017 in computing the income

ATUL TANTIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 492/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Atul Tantia Deputy Commissioner Of Jc-25, Gpt Centre Income Tax – Central Circle - Vs 3(1), Kolkata Sector-Iii Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700098 [Pan : Abmpt7504K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Shri Amit Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Section 68 on the basis of loose papers found during search in this case indicating assessee's transaction with a company, when assesse not only denied having any dealing with the said company but also produced all necessary details for AO to make necessary inquiries and a letter from director of that company confirming that the said company

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE ANJANI SAREES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 30/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133A

69B stands deleted, and (b) without prejudice to (a), if it is held that there was discrepancy in stock even then it was only the gross profit margin embedded therein which could alone be assessed by way of undisclosed income of the appellant and not fee entire value of unexplained stock. I have given due consideration to the facts arid

M/S G. PAUL & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1715/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1715/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.N.Dutta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl DIT
Section 69B

68,035/- as on 05.04.2010. As per the closing stock reflected in the books of accounts the closing stock was shown at 4657 kg valued at a sum of 2 M/s G.Paul & Sons A.Yr.2011-12 Rs.5,76,809/-. The difference was added as unexplained investment in stock by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Before

M/S SKIPPER LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 68

68 / 69/ 69A/ 69B / 69C/ 69D of the Act. This Circular was brought out in view of amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f 01.04.2017 which provides that no set off of any loss shall be given to assessee under the any of provision of the Act against the income as referred to in Clause

M/S S.KANEHIALALL LOHIA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 142(1)

section the income which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under

M/S S.KANEHIALALL LOHIA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 142(1)

section the income which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PREM LAL JAIN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1142/KOL/2012[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1994-95

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Uday Kumar Sarkar, JCIT, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surana,Advocate, ld.AR
Section 147Section 69

69B. From the perusal of the assessment order it is observed that though the AO found the transactions of investment in shares and share application money totaling to Rs.1,95,93,435/- recorded in the books of account of the assessee’s proprietorship concern, viz. M/s. Jain Finance Corporation , seized during the course of search but since, no sparate profit

PRAFULLA KUMAR GHOSH,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD-2, MALDA, MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 686/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Prafulla Kumar Ghosh -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-2, Malda Malda (Pan:Adhpg 8048 C) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 279/Mld/Cit(A)/Jal/08-09 Dated 02.03.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 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 K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69B

69B could be used even if business income is estimated as they do not come under any specific heads of income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohammed Haji Hassan vs CIT reported in 247 ITR 290. 7 Prafulla Kumar Ghosh A.Yr