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.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 149clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,243Mumbai902Karnataka488Bangalore471Chennai300Jaipur256Ahmedabad227Kolkata207Hyderabad186Chandigarh153Pune110Cochin82Indore74Raipur73Surat67Calcutta58Guwahati55Nagpur38Lucknow36Telangana36Agra34Rajkot33Visakhapatnam27Cuttack22Jodhpur17Dehradun15Amritsar13Allahabad10SC9Patna7Rajasthan7Ranchi6Kerala5Orissa4Panaji4Varanasi2Jabalpur2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)4Section 1644Section 143(3)4Section 115B4Natural Justice3Section 682Section 2502Section 246A2Section 167B2Deduction

MR. MALLIKARJUN APPANNA ITI,GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 419/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. A. S. Patil, Tax ConsultantFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Joshi, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 68Section 69

68 & 69 of the Act, such income shall be charged at the rate of 30% and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) and no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee at the time of computing the income. From the above, the amount of undisclosed income falls under the category

2
Addition to Income2

SHRI LOKAKALYAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NYT,BELAGAVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

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

ITA 332/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.332/PAN/2025 (Α.Υ. 2017-18) | Shree Lokakalyan Souharda Credit sahakari Niyamit, | Vs | I.T.O-Ward-1, Nemchand Building, | 1,A/P, Jatrat, Belgaum-591237, Karnataka. | | 747,AshokNagar, Nippani-591237, Karnataka. | PAN .No. AAAJS2263H | (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) | (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) | Assessee by | Shri. Veeranna M Murgod.AR | Revenue by | Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR | सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing | 11.11.2025 | घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Prono

Section 68

section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash credits of Rs.13,64,500/- and denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act and finally assessed the total income of Rs.42,88,149

SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 75/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 246ASection 250

68 SOT 164 (Hyd)], ‘Mahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Vs ITO [2024, 162 taxmann.com 44 (Cochin)], ‘National Association of Interlocking Surgeons Vs ITO’ [2025, 172 Taxmann.com 9 (Pune)] etc. The Revenue could hardly place decision of the higher court to controvert the case laws relied upon by the appellant to drive home the relief for normal taxation on account of inapplicability

SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 76/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 246ASection 250

68 SOT 164 (Hyd)], ‘Mahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Vs ITO [2024, 162 taxmann.com 44 (Cochin)], ‘National Association of Interlocking Surgeons Vs ITO’ [2025, 172 Taxmann.com 9 (Pune)] etc. The Revenue could hardly place decision of the higher court to controvert the case laws relied upon by the appellant to drive home the relief for normal taxation on account of inapplicability