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.

142 results for “section 68”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,564Mumbai9,418Kolkata3,077Bangalore2,581Ahmedabad2,210Chennai2,150Jaipur1,537Hyderabad1,411Pune1,319Surat940Chandigarh900Indore833Karnataka799Cochin635Rajkot485Raipur459Visakhapatnam418Lucknow297Nagpur288Amritsar263Agra248Cuttack241Guwahati223Telangana161Jodhpur146Patna142Ranchi136Calcutta124SC121Jabalpur118Panaji109Dehradun104Allahabad103Varanasi50Rajasthan22Kerala13Orissa11Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand4Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 153A105Addition to Income84Section 26365Section 143(3)59Section 6857Section 25050Section 14742Section 14834Section 143(2)32Limitation/Time-bar

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
18
Survey u/s 133A17
Cash Deposit16

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. From the above observations, the AO treated the entire share capital money received of Rs.3,65,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and made addition into the total income of the assessee. P a g e 6

ROHIT KHANDELWAL,MADHUBANI vs. AC/DCIT, CENT, CIR, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 11SSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax payable under section 11SBBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub- section

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

section 68 can be done, is unfair and harsh and not equitable in law, hence liable to be set aside. 5. That the assessee reserves his right to urge any other ground, submission and or citation circulars/notifications/judicial or quasi- judicial pronouncements/judgements etc. at the time of further hearing and We pray for the admissibility of it with your learned

SHREEPUNJ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,BEGUSARAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BEGUSARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 on account of share capital contributed by Shri Shyam Kishore Singh amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after verifying the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of two agreements for sale of agricultural land, the consideration of which received in cash is claimed

KUMARI SANJANA SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 47/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh................................…...........................……….……Appellant W/O Shiv Nararyan Singh, Harsh Egg Centre, Near Anishabad Golambar, Manik Chand Talab, Anishabad, Patna-800002. [Pan: Cleps6120G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Patna-2 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69Section 695Section 69ASection 69CSection 69D

68, section 69, section 69A, section 695, section 69C or section 69D. I.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not taking into consideration the remand report of the ld assessing officer, wherein the ld assessing officer after proper investigation and examination

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

6) on 04.12.2018, therefore, the unsecured loan against the name of ESL as appearing in the books of account of the assessee during the year amounting to Rs.3,97,35,320/- was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement reported

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement reported

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement reported

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement reported

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement reported

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 68 of the Act for alleged unexplained cash credit. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening being bad in law and illegal

MITHILESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/PAT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153DSection 263

68 to 69D read with Section 115BBE, by colouring the "deemed incomes" as business income. More so, in cases of unaccounted cash and undisclosed investment/expenditure in purchases, and excess stock assessable under section 69A/69B/69C of the Act. 3.2.1. At the outset, all the decisions quoted and relied upon by the assessee, with regard to non-applicability of Section

M/S MARUTI NANDAN FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

section 68 of the Act in respect of loan transactions, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Shri Dinesh Kumar, CA represented the assessee and Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR represented the revenue. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a written submission along with

SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

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

ITA 605/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrasawita Shah, Income Tax Officer, W/O Kamal Kishor Gupta Sudi Ward 3(1), Purnia Tola, Ansari Thakur Tola, Vs Dalmapur, Baisi, Purnia, Bihar - 854315 (Pan: Gnzps0882J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

section 68 previous year savings treated as unexplained income in the case of the appellant which is bad in fact and law of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) Addl/JCIT(A)-, Guwahati has erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. and ignoring of the fact the amount deposited is Rs.2, 25,000/- which is under

M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATNA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 270/PAT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the Act. 2.For that the appellant has received the donation through proper banking channel and all the donors are Income Tax assessee. 3. For that the sustenance of addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 4. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/PAT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the Act. 2.For that the appellant has received the donation through proper banking channel and all the donors are Income Tax assessee. 3. For that the sustenance of addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 4. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

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

ITA 351/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

68 and assessed the same to tax and also charged tax as specified under section 115BBE of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹15,85,575/-. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued six notices for hearing during the period from

SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

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

ITA 82/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

6 For that the cash deposit could have been, at the most, be considered as turnover of the business and net profit @ 8% as per provisions of section 44AD should have been applied an income should have been calculated accordingly. 7 For that the taxable income should have been calculated after allowing the exemption limit under Income