Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

130 results for “section 68”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,944 Mumbai4,180 Bangalore1,548 Chennai1,086 Ahmedabad1,024 Kolkata1,006 Jaipur810 Hyderabad743 Karnataka685 Pune513 Indore459 Surat448 Chandigarh442 Cochin268 Raipur247 Visakhapatnam192 Rajkot182 Agra159 Nagpur145 Lucknow130 Cuttack117 Amritsar115 Telangana110 Guwahati101 Jabalpur73 Ranchi72 SC72 Calcutta69 Jodhpur61 Allahabad55 Patna49 Panaji42 Dehradun30 Varanasi20 Rajasthan11 Orissa9 Kerala8 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Uttarakhand3 Punjab & Haryana2 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Tripura1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Gauhati1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income83 Section 1175 Section 6849 Section 143(3)47 Section 14A40 Section 12A38 Exemption33 Section 2(15)31 Section 143(2)28 Disallowance

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

section 68 can not be applied. In\nview of the above, we find no justification for\nupholding the addition of 59,51,29

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

28

Natural Justice23

ITA 351/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed

ITAT Lucknow

30 Jun 2025

AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or ITA No.351 & 431/LKW/2020 Page 20 of 29

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 431/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or ITA No.351 & 431/LKW/2020 Page 20 of 29

TACK EXIM PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 324/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tack Exim Pvt. Limited V. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11/18-A, Pokharpur Income Tax, Jajmau, Kanpur Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadct7929D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271ASection 68

29 11 2024 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 09.03.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company is engaged

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4 Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 3. Aggrieved with the said order passed by the ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that the AO had drawn up a chart without any proper basis and on the basis of imaginary

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

68 of the Act, 1961. He also brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. iv. The ld. AO noted from the audit report that sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 37,21,75,184/-, including opening credit balances of suppliers that were continuing for past many years and no transactions had occurred in the ledger of such suppliers during

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHREE PATESHWARI ELECTRICALS AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 407/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

Section 68 cannot be applied. In view of the above, we find no justification for upholding the addition of Rs.59,51,29

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

Section 11Section 32Section 68

Section 11 & 12 of the I.T. Act; 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 6,07,22,423/- 2 ignoring the fact that the appellant had already claimed deduction of full value of fixed assets in earlier years resulting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 557/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

section 11 thereby deleting the addition of surplus of Rs.3,90,37,074/-. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs.3,05,40,229/- made by the AO on account of personal expenses ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce proper vouchers during the assessment proceedings

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 24/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 and 69C of the Act have been incorrectly made, since the concerned transactions did not relate ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 16 of 46 to the year under consideration; that moreover, neither had the assessee failed to offer an explanation, nor did the source of the expenditure remain unproved; and that the transactions pertaining to the opening inventory

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 73/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

section 68- Held, yes [in favour of revenue] 8.14 Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379 (Del) where it was held "we have no hesitation in holding that transactions in question were clearly sham and make believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

68 of the Act as mentioned elsewhere, such discharge of onus is purely a question of fact and therefore the judicial decisions relied upon by the DR would do no good on the peculiar plethora of evidences in respect of the facts of the case in hand and hence the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides, though perused

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 498/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 38

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

AMITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 464/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

29,95,171/- was made under section 68 of the Act on protective basis and addition of ITA Nos.463

AMITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 463/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

29,95,171/- was made under section 68 of the Act on protective basis and addition of ITA Nos.463

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

29,103/-. Issue No. 4 – AY 2015-16 Addition u/s 68 source of introduction of Capital in Firm M/s Alok Construction Rs. 34,25,339/- That AO made addition of Rs. 34,25,339/- amount added in capital a/c inadvertently and bank balance was also increased by Rs. 34,25,339/- being contra entry on debit side. The said mistake

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

29,103/-. Issue No. 4 – AY 2015-16 Addition u/s 68 source of introduction of Capital in Firm M/s Alok Construction Rs. 34,25,339/- That AO made addition of Rs. 34,25,339/- amount added in capital a/c inadvertently and bank balance was also increased by Rs. 34,25,339/- being contra entry on debit side. The said mistake

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

29,103/-. Issue No. 4 – AY 2015-16 Addition u/s 68 source of introduction of Capital in Firm M/s Alok Construction Rs. 34,25,339/- That AO made addition of Rs. 34,25,339/- amount added in capital a/c inadvertently and bank balance was also increased by Rs. 34,25,339/- being contra entry on debit side. The said mistake

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

section 68 i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Though now AO is trying to place on record report of DDIT(Inv), Unit-2, Kolkata who submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 in support of this request. This report was received on 17.04.2018 whereas the impugned assessment order was passed on 28.12.2017. Therefore this report

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

section 68 i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Though now AO is trying to place on record report of DDIT(Inv), Unit-2, Kolkata who submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 in support of this request. This report was received on 17.04.2018 whereas the impugned assessment order was passed on 28.12.2017. Therefore this report