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 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,393Delhi2,381Bangalore712Karnataka582Ahmedabad561Chennai535Kolkata491Jaipur404Hyderabad343Chandigarh262Indore260Pune259Cochin135Surat135Visakhapatnam126Raipur122Rajkot88Lucknow75Nagpur71Guwahati68Telangana68Cuttack67Calcutta64Jabalpur59Amritsar48SC29Agra23Ranchi20Patna17Allahabad17Jodhpur17Dehradun11Varanasi9Rajasthan6Orissa6Panaji4Kerala1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 92C6Section 143(3)4Addition to Income4Section 2503Deduction3Natural Justice3Section 682Section 250(6)2Section 92A2Cash Deposit

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2
Transfer Pricing2
Exemption2
ITA 389/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

LAXMI NARCINVA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

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

ITA 185/PAN/2025[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.185/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Laxmi Narcinva Urban Vs Ito-Ward-3, Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Blessings Pioneer . Katkar Guru Ashish Building, Complex, 1 St Floor,Rua Clovis Costa Old Market, Road, Margoa-403601, Margoa-403601, Goa. Goa. Pan .No. Aaajl1003E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Pramod.Y.Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Application & Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections.

Section 68

section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash credits/ unexplained money and assessed the total income of Rs.36,92

MAHADEV MALLAPPA ATAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELAGAVI

ITA 14/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 014/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahadev Mallappa Atar Pwd Contractor, Katkol, Ramdurg, Dist. Balgavi-591114 Pan:Abxpa7467P . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Ms Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)Section 68

92,821/- owning to three separate addition viz; (1) 40A(3) disallowance of cash payment of ₹42,82,901/- made M/s Anup Cements (2) disallowance of bogus expenditure of ₹4,26,550/- paid to M/s Bharati Cements and (3) 40A(3) disallowance of cash payment of ₹32,000/- made to M/s Nirani Cements and (4) unexplained cash deposits