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.

7,167 results for “section 68”+ Section 143clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7,233Mumbai7,167Kolkata2,409Bangalore1,566Ahmedabad1,528Chennai1,223Jaipur1,217Hyderabad1,002Pune836Indore665Surat612Chandigarh603Karnataka548Rajkot374Raipur343Visakhapatnam330Cochin316Lucknow231Amritsar212Guwahati202Agra196Nagpur196Calcutta119Cuttack111Patna106Panaji103Jodhpur102Ranchi94Allahabad91Dehradun78Telangana68Jabalpur43Varanasi35SC33Kerala10Rajasthan8Orissa7Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana2Uttarakhand2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)122Addition to Income70Section 6868Section 14744Disallowance33Section 14829Section 25028Section 14A25Section 69C25Section 153A

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 06/01/2025
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80J

68,378/- . In the 143(3) order the claim under Section 80JJAA itself is . In the 143(3) order

Showing 1–20 of 7,167 · Page 1 of 359

...
22
Reopening of Assessment18
Deduction14

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6702/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

section 143(1), declined to adjudicate the issue on merits, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 68

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and finally the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer was affirmed on the ground that the creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction were not satisfactorily explained. 2.3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6703/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

section 143(1), declined to adjudicate the issue on merits, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 68

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 6663/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

section 143(1), declined to adjudicate the issue on merits, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 68

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 6701/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

section 143(1), declined to adjudicate the issue on merits, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 68

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

143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act, wherein, he has made an addition of Rs 795,96,83,862 under Section 68

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2268/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 250Section 68

68 do not apply to such loans at all and no part of such loans could have been assessed as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. Further, the appellant has also submitted that these loans were appearing as the closing balance for the immediately preceding assessment year which has been already assessed under Section 143

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2826/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 250Section 68

68 do not apply to such loans at all and no part of such loans could have been assessed as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. Further, the appellant has also submitted that these loans were appearing as the closing balance for the immediately preceding assessment year which has been already assessed under Section 143

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

143(1) of the Act under section 43B of the Act amounting to INR 68,05,543 without even

ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2243/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

section 132 of the Act on 09-01-2018. Consequent thereto, the AO initiated the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act for this year. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.43.41 crores by making various additions. The main addition made

THE ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

section 132 of the Act on 09-01-2018. Consequent thereto, the AO initiated the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act for this year. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.43.41 crores by making various additions. The main addition made

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

68, read with section 153A, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit\n(Unexplained cash deposits) - Assessment\nyear 2017-18 Certain cash was\ndeposited during post demonetisation in\naccount of assessee, engaged in resale of\njewellery, diamond etc. Assessing Officer\nobserved that there were two sets of\nbooks of account, i.e., one in computer of\naccountant and another

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

143(1), it had escaped assessment. On these facts the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was legal and in accordance with law. 2.23. Likewise, in the case of Sunil Kumar lain: Suresh Chandra lain v. ITO, (2006) 284 ITR 626 (All), notwithstanding the fact

OLEANDER FARMS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4966/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bahadur
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

section 143(3), AO made addition u/s 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit, agricultural income, addition on account

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Section 143(1)(a)." 6.1 In this case, no scrutiny assessment was framed and the return of income was routinely processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Hon'bIe Delhi High Court cited above, ground no.1 of appeal is hereby dismissed

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Section 143(1)(a)." 6.1 In this case, no scrutiny assessment was framed and the return of income was routinely processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Hon'bIe Delhi High Court cited above, ground no.1 of appeal is hereby dismissed

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Section 143(1)(a)." 6.1 In this case, no scrutiny assessment was framed and the return of income was routinely processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Hon'bIe Delhi High Court cited above, ground no.1 of appeal is hereby dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in relevant finding of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3925/Mum/2009 has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 3925/Mum/2009 has been reproduced by the Ld. ITA No. 3925/Mum/2009 has been reproduced by the Ld. the impugned order. For ready reference, same is reproduced

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

68. In support of our contention we rely on the following decisions:- 1. CIT V/s. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) "Held, that in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were