Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi626 Mumbai502 Karnataka444 Bangalore181 Kolkata154 Jaipur139 Chennai125 Ahmedabad80 Hyderabad56 Pune53 Calcutta51 Indore44 Chandigarh43 Cochin34 Surat33 Visakhapatnam23 Rajkot21 Cuttack20 Raipur18 SC17 Lucknow15 Telangana14 Nagpur11 Allahabad9 Guwahati9 Dehradun7 Agra6 Rajasthan6 Jodhpur5 Varanasi5 Patna4 Jabalpur4 Amritsar4 Ranchi2 Orissa2 Andhra Pradesh1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 6817 Addition to Income7 Section 696 Section 1486 Section 142(1)5 Section 36(1)(viii)4 Reassessment4 Deduction4 Section 143(2)3 Reopening of Assessment

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) it has been held that- “Under section 68 of Income Tax Act creditor‟s creditworthiness

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

3

Natural Justice3

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

section 68 or 69A of I.T. Act 1961. Addition made by A.O. is unjustified. F) Observation of A.O. at para 40 & 41 is factually incorrect. During regular assessment proceedings loan transaction was verified and examined while accepting the same as genuine loan. Observations of A.O. thus are indicative of non-application of mind. G) In submission made before

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

68 of the Act made and confirmed by the authorities below to be unsustainable and therefore, directed the AO to deleted the said addition and accept the LTCG income shown as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries –Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

68,07,020/- made by the AO is found to be correct and the contention of the appellant in this context is rejected. Ground no. 3 is confirmed. 9.0 In the 4th Ground of appeal, the AO has observed that the appellant has claimed the deduction of Rs.2,77,22,160/- on account of recovery in respect of bad debts

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

68,07,020/- made by the AO is found to be correct and the contention of the appellant in this context is rejected. Ground no. 3 is confirmed. 9.0 In the 4th Ground of appeal, the AO has observed that the appellant has claimed the deduction of Rs.2,77,22,160/- on account of recovery in respect of bad debts

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DISHA DEVEN MALVIYA , NAGPUR

ITA 400/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur24 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69

section as such. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition as held to be made U/s 69 makes the entire addition made by the AO illegal and liable to be deleted as per law. 3. The addition made by the AO, if held to be made U/s 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DISHA DEVEN MALVIYA L/H OF LATE SHRI DEVEN MALVIYA , NAGPUR

ITA 401/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur24 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69

section as such. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition as held to be made U/s 69 makes the entire addition made by the AO illegal and liable to be deleted as per law. 3. The addition made by the AO, if held to be made U/s 68

ACIT, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DESHA DEVEN MALVIYA L/H OF LATE SHRI DEVEN MALVIYA, NAGPUR

ITA 402/NAG/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur24 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69

section as such. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition as held to be made U/s 69 makes the entire addition made by the AO illegal and liable to be deleted as per law. 3. The addition made by the AO, if held to be made U/s 68

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

section 10(2)(xv). Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights; nor can the existence or absence of entries in his books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." (underlined

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

section 10(2)(xv). Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights; nor can the existence or absence of entries in his books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." (underlined

SHRI KRUPA UDHYOG,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 139/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 68

68 is totally absent in the present case. 6. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in not giving any consideration to the cases relied upon and the submissions made by the assessee on the facts of the case, time to time, though the dates of submissions made