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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 144B(1)(xvi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi65Jaipur10Chandigarh9Mumbai8Hyderabad3Rajkot2Visakhapatnam1Bangalore1Jodhpur1Nagpur1Raipur1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 2639Section 143(3)6Section 686Section 14Section 694Addition to Income4Penalty4Section 144B3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. K K VENTURA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands\ndismissed

ITA 5331/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

144B on 06/08/2021, wherein the Assessing Officer\nbrought to tax unexplained loans aggregating\nto\n*8,43,50,000/- under section 68, together with disallowance\nof interest expenditure of ₹29,95,911/-.\n5. The assessee thereafter preferred a writ petition before the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court, inter alia contending that the\nAssessing Officer had failed to provide

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
28 Aug 2024
AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

68,18,55,028.\n\n2.2 The learned PCIT erred in not following the\ndecision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bank of\nIndia (27 taxmann.com 335), affirmed by the\nBombay High Court in 64 taxmann.com 215 as\nalso adopted by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order\nfor AY 2008-09.\n\n2.3 The learned PCIT erred

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

144B 24/1055381 637(1) 39 4313/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2002-03 Assessee 378/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai [Appeals 40 4314/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2003-04 against 374/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

144B 24/1055381 637(1) 39 4313/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2002-03 Assessee 378/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai [Appeals 40 4314/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2003-04 against 374/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

144B 24/1055381 637(1) 39 4313/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2002-03 Assessee 378/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai [Appeals 40 4314/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2003-04 against 374/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

144B 24/1055381 637(1) 39 4313/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2002-03 Assessee 378/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai [Appeals 40 4314/Mum/2010 CIT(A)-I/IT- 09.03.2010 DCIT, Range 30.03.2009 271(1)(c) 2003-04 against 374/2009-10 1(1), Mumbai Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1

ENDURA SOFT SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2021/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarendura Soft Solution V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, बनाम Income Tax, Ward – Geeta Building, Sion Circle, 4(2)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sion East, Next To Hp Petrol Churchgate, Mumbai – Pump, Mumbai – 400 022, 400020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6529P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla & Shri Shubham Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

144B on total income Rs. 4,88,23,370 /- making additions of Rs. 2,88,56,010/- on account of unsecured loans received from one Sunflow Fininvest Pvt Ltd(‘SFPL’) and interest paid on the loan amounting to Rs. 1,99,67,364/-.During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee

ITO-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AMISHI MIHIR DOSHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5439/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash K. JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan- Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 148Section 250Section 69

68 of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B at an income of Rs. 9,45,43,861/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the assessee’s submissions on legal grounds as well as on the merits, Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief on merits with the following observations: “I have