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.

50 results for “section 68”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi444Chennai188Mumbai184Jaipur172Bangalore132Ahmedabad124Hyderabad97Surat90Kolkata82Lucknow68Chandigarh57Pune50Indore35Panaji34Visakhapatnam33Rajkot31Agra30Raipur28Amritsar22Patna21Jodhpur17Dehradun13Cuttack12Cochin6Nagpur6Jabalpur6Guwahati5Karnataka5Allahabad5Calcutta3Varanasi2SC1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 6888Addition to Income45Demonetization41Cash Deposit39Section 143(3)29Section 25026Section 115B24Section 14421Section 143(2)20Section 69A

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

Demonetization Period. The assessee submitted that it was made out of closing balance of earlier year. The assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT Vs. Basetteppa B Badami [2018] 93 taxmann.com 66 (Karnataka). 7.1 Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.12,07,960/- under section 68

DILIP JUHARMAN JAIN ,RAIGAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

19
Section 142(1)16
Unexplained Cash Credit15
ITAT Pune
24 Jan 2024
AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dilip Juharmal Jain, The Acit, Bazarpeth, Mirchi Galli, At & V Circle Panvel. Post Pen Tal Pen Dist, S Raigad – 402107. Pan: Aappj5566P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

demonetization in the assessment order. 5.1 For ready reference section 68 is produced as under : Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found

M/S MAULI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LIMITED,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvnesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period. Before us, the assessee has not disputed the applicability of section 69A of the Act viz-a-viz section 68

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 68

demonetization period was towards the instalment of outstanding loan account of the borrower. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,34,000/- by invoking provisions of section 68

DASHRATH KISHANRAO CHOUDHARY,GANGAKHED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

ITA 2750/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

demonetization (after 03.12.2016), violating Government of India Notification No.SO-3598(E) dated 30.11.2016. As per the notification, petrol pumps authorized by public sector oil marketing companies could only accept SBNs until 03.12.2016. Rs. 40,99,500 was treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTA MARAYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1625/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 68 of the Act, the AO has to provethat assessee failed to file identity of the depositors, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness. Inthis case, the assessee had submitted the names of 5 ITA No.1625/PUN/2025 [A] the persons from whom cash was received during thedemonetization period in the form of demonetized

V R AUTO SERVICES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 115BSection 143Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period from 09/11/2016 to the tune of Rs. 2,12,05,429/- (Rs. 2,18,38,160/-(-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

CITIZEN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

ITA 2681/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Citizen Nagari Sahakri Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Patsanstha Ltd., 5, Dsouza Colony, Tulip Apartment, College Road, Nashik- 422005. Pan : Aabac1443M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.74,80,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The It Act, By Disregarding The Detailed Submission Made By The Appellant, Wherein It Was Mentioned That The Case Deposited In Bank Belongs To Identified

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 68

68 as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee credit cooperative society was not permitted to accept SBN from his members and therefore he added the same to the income of the assessee. However, we find that the complete details of the members who deposited SBN with the assessee was available with the Assessing

SHRI SANT SADGURU NARAYANGIRI MAHARAJ NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1376/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit of assessee in respect of cash deposits in bank during demonetization

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1385/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 68 of the Act which has been upheld by the Ld. CITIA). The Ld. AO found that during the demonetization

VIJAY GULABRAO SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1453/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

demonetization period”. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC therefore affirmed the action of the Ld.AO in making the said addition. With regard to addition made on account of unexplained cash gift of Rs.50,00,000/- under section 68

MAHARUDRA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SONJAMB, NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1777/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 5Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

section 68 of the Act. Assessee had deposited cash of 2 Rs.23,78,500/- on 11.11.2016 i.e. during the period of Demonetization

SHRI SANTOSH HARICHAND KATRELA, ,BEED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, BEED

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

ITA 339/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.339/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Santosh Harichand Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Beed. Katrela, Audut Campus, Jalna Road, Gujrathi Colony Beed, Beed- 431122. Pan : Akgpk6862N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Filed With Delay Of 99 Days. In The Light Of The Fact That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic The Period Of Limitation Has Already Been Extended By Hon’Ble Supreme

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

section 68 of the I T Act, though it’s ingredient is not fulfilled. Thus, addition may please be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 93/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (e) It is noted during the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed to have paid loans & advances to the extent of Rs.1,84,48,381/- as against Rs.1,45.92,737/- claimed in the earlier year AY 2016-17 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee has paid fresh loans & advances

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 68, an Income-tax Officer was not precluded from making an inquiry about true nature and source of sum found credited in books of assessee, even if same was credited as receipt of share application money. In the case of Nisha Sharma146 taxmann.com 209 (Jabalpur - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny

PRAVIN SHANKAR PAKALE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

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

ITA 1153/PUN/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B S Rajpurohit, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

demonetization period by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Since the assessee, despite number

ARIHANT JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. CIT (A)-6 INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 9 (1), PUNE

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer further noted the total credits into the bank account including the deposits during demonetization

KISHOR VITTHAL KOLHE,JALGAON vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

ITA 1876/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.64,94,250/- being the difference between the cash balance as on 01.04.2016 and the cash balance as on 08.11.2016 by observing as under: 4 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 5 6 7 8. Aggrieved

RAJENDRA SHAMRAO PATIL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4),, JALGAON

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1398/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1398/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rajendra Shamrao Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Flat No.05, Dharmaraj Plaza Apartment, Gangapur Road, Old Gangapur Naka, Nashik-422005. Pan : Abipp2109A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Saumitra Gokhale Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-2 Nashik’S Order Dated 01.07.2019 Passed In Case No.Nsk/Cit(A)-2/141/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Delay Of 12 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned Since Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate In Light Of His Averments In Condonation Affidavit Dated 19.09.2019 Attributing Reasons Thereof To Communication Gap Between Auditor & Arguing Counsel.

For Appellant: Smt. Saumitra GokhaleFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.10,12,177/- during the course of assessment dated 27.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it transpires at the outset that he has failed to offer any reasonable explanation controverting the same in entirety. The CIT(A) detailed discussion affirming the impugned addition reads as under :- “5.2 On the other

LAXMANRAO AKARAM PATIL,TASGAON vs. DCIT, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

ITA 588/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar M MaliFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144

section 68 of the IT act being cash deposited in his bank accounts during demonetization and also includes addition of Rs. 2,03,870/- on account