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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi444Chennai188Mumbai184Jaipur172Bangalore132Ahmedabad124Hyderabad97Surat90Kolkata82Lucknow68Chandigarh57Pune50Indore35Panaji34Visakhapatnam33Rajkot31Agra30Raipur28Amritsar22Patna21Jodhpur17Dehradun13Cuttack12Cochin6Nagpur6Jabalpur6Guwahati5Karnataka5Allahabad5Calcutta3Varanasi2SC1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 687Section 142(1)6Demonetization6Addition to Income6Section 69A5Cash Deposit5Section 234A3Section 2502Section 115B2

SANDIP DOHARE,GONDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GONDIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 533/NAG/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

demonetization period. In response, the assessee stated that list of debtors and their address will be submitted by 10/12/2019. However, the assessee could not furnish any such details till the date of passing assessment order. The assessee, vide notice under section 142(1) dated 20/12/2019, was specifically asked to explain the source of excess deposits

SUMIT PRAKASHRAO FULZELE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2 , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Section 68 will not be applicable, yet cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee u/s 69/69B - unless any clinching evidence, shows nature and source of money deposited in the bank account, same should be added as his unexplained income - yes 5. Praveen Garg vs. ITO 132 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi-ITAT) (2021) - Appellant failed to explain the source

SHRINIWAS NARAYAN GADGONIWAR,CHANDRAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 104/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69A

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in affirming the addition made by the 2 Shriniwas Narayan Gadgoniwar ITA no.104/Nag./2024 Assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 1,22,830/ under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether

KANHAIYA KRUSHI KENDRA,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD -1 , YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: ShriAbhishek Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted computation of income, audited report, bank statement and produced cash book. Whereas, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee is not able to substantiate and explain the source of cash deposits made in the bank account during the demonetization period and made addition of cash credits u/sec 68

NIKHIL SHANKARLALJI WAGHWANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHANKARLALJI HOTCHANDJI WAGHWANI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

68,85,500, towards unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer has ignored that the assessee had shown sales turnover of ` 52.97 crore for the assessment year 2017-18 vis-a-vis cash deposits in old currency during demonetization of ` 68.85 lakh. Therefore, cash sales in demonetised currency were reasonable compared to the sales turnover shown. The assessee had submitted audited

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 10.07.2024 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017–18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. THAT considering the facts of the case, the learned AO erred in rejecting