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.

35 results for “section 68”+ Section 245C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad43Mumbai35Delhi35Visakhapatnam19Jaipur13Pune13Indore9Cochin7Kolkata5Bangalore2SC2Karnataka1Chennai1Chandigarh1Surat1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Addition to Income25Section 143(3)23Search & Seizure16Undisclosed Income13Section 25312Limitation/Time-bar12Section 13211Disallowance10Section 2638

DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. LATE SHRI SAWARMAL HISARIA THROUGH L/H SANDEEP HISARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1042/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

section 245C(1) of the Act. We are of the view that after reopening of the assessment order no addition can be made on the basis of income offered by the assessee before Settlement Commission. We find that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action substantiating that assessee has actually earned undisclosed income. Therefore, just

SHRI MOHAN THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7413/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

Section 245D(3)8
Section 245D(4)7
Section 143(2)7
09 Jan 2020
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153C

68,079 Emirates Rupani 09 Total A 6,44,879 Funds given by Mohan Thakur to Desiree Ann Thakur 20.03.2008 43,407 Ireland Hugo Merry 2008-09 37.5367 16,29,355 Stud Farm 18.03.2008 10,713 Unknown Callbrated 2008-09 37.7547 4,04,466 colur 07.11.2007 1,30,659 Hong Kong Golden 2008-09 36.3154 47,44,933 Dragon

USV P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-C-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

245C of the Act requesting for settlement of its pending cases which petition has been disposed off. Page No. | 2 ITA NO. 891 & 2573/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2018-19) M/s. USV Private Limited 3. In relation to the impugned A.Y. 2018-2019, the Assessee filed its original Return of Income for AY 2018-19 on 29.11.2018, declaring a total income

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CEN-CIRCLE 6(2). MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 808/MUM/2022[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 812/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2),, MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), , MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 811/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 855/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 853/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI. vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 856/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. HEMENDRA MERCHANT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 854/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

HEMENDRA RANCHOODDAS MERCHANT ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

68, d Interest ,431 73 30 2 657 223 now brought to tax 4.14 The Assessing Officer also disallowed sundry creditors invoking section 41(1) of the Act . According to the Assessing Officer the assessee during the course of search proceeding stated that source of investing in fixed deposits (FDR) was through creditors outstanding in the balance sheet

GROVER VINEYARDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3509/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Ward M/S Grover Vineyards 1(1)(4),531 A/579 Pvt. Ltd., 107/8, 1St Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Arcadia, N.C.P.A. M.K.Road Lane, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Grover Vineyards Income Tax Officer Ltd. Anand Bhavan, 348, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. L. Raghavendra Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

245C seeking a settlement of a ‘case’ as defined in section 245A(b). In that case the Commissioner of Income Tax was directed by the Commission to submit a factual report u/s 245D(3) on several aspects including, inter alia, the following: “(b) To verify the genuineness of loans and creditworthiness of the entities who are said to have

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1556/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1846/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1560/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1851/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn