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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi55Mumbai52Jaipur48Bangalore14Lucknow11Amritsar11Visakhapatnam10Chandigarh10Indore9Ahmedabad8Chennai8Pune8Kolkata6Raipur5Hyderabad5Cuttack4Jodhpur2Nagpur2Cochin1Rajkot1Ranchi1Surat1Allahabad1Agra1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 685Section 14A4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 43B3Section 36(1)(va)3Section 2(24)(x)3Deduction3Condonation of Delay2

PULAK SAMANTA,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , BURDWAN

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

ITA 1027/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Shri Pulak Samanta Ito, Ward 2(3), Burdwan S/O Sushil Samanta, Kharga Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Karanda, P.S. Memari, Dist. Kachari Road, Court Compound, Vs. Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713149 Burdwan-713101, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Benps8092A Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, DR
Section 115BSection 68

80C (₹1,50,000) and 80TTA (₹1,865). 03. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed substantial cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank accounts, including deposits during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). The assessee explained that, being an agent of Bajaj Finance Ltd., he collected instalments and due amounts from customers and deposited the same into

Cash Deposit2
Depreciation2

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

68. One must not lose sight of the fact that it is the Revenue which has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person.” We note that it was an unfounded assumption on the part of the learned AO that since the notice u/s 133(6) remained unserved, the parties are non-existent and as such the payment made

ASHOK CHAURASIA,PARBATIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HALDIA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the addition is not tenable at law and liable to be deleted. 12. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as in facts by making an addition to the income-from business amounting to Rs. 14,09,790 where no mention of such income is discussed

ITO, WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. SHRI ARUNASIA SARKAR, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

68,018 Sundry Creditors 0 1,34,05,692 Sundry Debtors 3,90,007 1,26,64,924 Unsecured loan from 0 42,00,000 relatives Loan to relatives 50,000 0 Cash & Bank 42,142 2,01,236 Chapter VIA deduction claimed u/s 80C 1,00,000 1,00,000 u/s 80G 12,000 0 u/s 80GG

ARUNASHIS SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

68,018 Sundry Creditors 0 1,34,05,692 Sundry Debtors 3,90,007 1,26,64,924 Unsecured loan from 0 42,00,000 relatives Loan to relatives 50,000 0 Cash & Bank 42,142 2,01,236 Chapter VIA deduction claimed u/s 80C 1,00,000 1,00,000 u/s 80G 12,000 0 u/s 80GG

ITO, WARD - 38(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDHIR MALHOTRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 306/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee and material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs.29,23,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits found to be made in the Bank account