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.

2,630 results for “section 68”+ Section 100clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,630Delhi2,436Bangalore806Karnataka599Ahmedabad526Jaipur513Chennai501Kolkata420Hyderabad403Indore280Chandigarh261Pune251Surat248Visakhapatnam125Cochin121Rajkot118Raipur97Cuttack89Nagpur79Telangana74Lucknow71Guwahati66Calcutta54SC39Amritsar33Allahabad29Jodhpur24Ranchi23Agra23Jabalpur19Patna18Varanasi12Rajasthan10Panaji8Orissa7Dehradun7Uttarakhand2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)67Addition to Income66Section 6849Disallowance36Section 271(1)(c)29Section 14726Deduction24Section 14A21Section 115J18Section 40

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Act merely on the basis that details regarding the source of source of funds of such rights shareholders has not been provided. Further, this action of the learned AO also undermines the order of learned TPO and learned DRP wherein the right issue made to such shareholders has been examined and verified with no adverse

Showing 1–20 of 2,630 · Page 1 of 132

...
14
Penalty14
Section 14813

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

ITA 3726/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Smt. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 195Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(d)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

68 or the procedure under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 to effectuate the buyback of shares

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6468/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Ms. Priyanka –(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Radha K. Narang
Section 14ASection 254(1)

68 or the procedure under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 to effectuate the buyback of shares

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3258/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Dr Mahesh Akhade, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Surana, CA (written
Section 68

100/- made by Assessing Officer [AO] under section 68 of the Act. ITA 3258/Mum/2016 M/s Nav Consec Pvt Ltd AY 2011-12 3. The brief

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 68

68, in terms, are not applicable The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

100 without having any voting rights.\nThus, in the present case, the assessee has complied with the provisions of the\nMulti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, under which it is formed.\n44. Further, unlike the facts in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the\nMulti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 expressly permits loan to non-\nmembers under section

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 142(2A) of the Act is mere\ntactics to extend the period of limitation and we find the same to be necessary\ndue to multiplicity of transactions and complexities involved in assessee's\naccounts. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised in assessee's appeal is dismissed.\n\n7. Since the issue arising in grounds no. 3-4 raised in assessee

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

100 without having any voting rights.\nThus, in the present case, the assessee has complied with the provisions of the\nMulti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, under which it is formed.\n44. Further, unlike the facts in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the\nMulti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 expressly permits loan to non-\nmembers under section

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

100 without having any voting rights.\nThus, in the present case, the assessee has complied with the provisions of the\nMulti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, under which it is formed.\n44. Further, unlike the facts in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the\nMulti-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 expressly permits loan to non-\nmembers under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

section 68. The abundance of these tends to convey the impression that the AO has been vested with vast discretionary powers and the application of a provision depends mainly upon how he utilises his discretion. The question could be asked whether, he, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is unfettered by any rule of law or procedure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

section 68. The abundance of these tends to convey the impression that the AO has been vested with vast discretionary powers and the application of a provision depends mainly upon how he utilises his discretion. The question could be asked whether, he, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is unfettered by any rule of law or procedure

SYNTENSIA NETWORK SECURITY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68, the amount which represents credit of the year that can be added as unexplained credit for that year. Opening balance is not subject to tax u/s. 68 of the Act as the same is representing the credit of another previous year. Shares were allotted by the assessee company to its holding company at 100

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38) of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4616/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38) of the Income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUCHIR CHEMICALS PVT LTD, MUMBAI.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

100 per share with share premium of ₹.90 per share. Accordingly, Assessing Officer initiated the re-assessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 and the same was served on the assessee. Notice u/s.143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee attended and submitted the relevant information

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

Section 68 of the Act - a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

Section 68 of the Act - a premium of Rs. 875 per share on a face value of Rs. 100

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

Section 68 can be invoked when there is a credit of sum of money in the books maintained by the assesse during the previous year and either the assesse offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits or the explanation furnished by the assessee in the opinion of the AO is not satisfactory. b) The opinion

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

Section 68 can be invoked when there is a credit of sum of money in the books maintained by the assesse during the previous year and either the assesse offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits or the explanation furnished by the assessee in the opinion of the AO is not satisfactory. b) The opinion