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.

221 results for “section 68”+ Section 87clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,376Mumbai2,239Bangalore736Karnataka586Ahmedabad542Chennai541Jaipur445Kolkata439Hyderabad345Indore280Pune221Chandigarh219Cochin140Raipur120Surat118Visakhapatnam105Cuttack77Nagpur72Rajkot71Lucknow70Telangana70Calcutta62Guwahati52Amritsar45Allahabad40Panaji37SC33Agra33Ranchi27Jodhpur25Patna22Dehradun18Varanasi16Jabalpur11Rajasthan8Orissa6K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)96Addition to Income78Section 15432Section 12A31Section 271(1)(c)28Section 6827Disallowance27Section 143(2)24Section 1124Deduction

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

87,000/-) and as per the stock statement (Rs.16,72,63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess

Showing 1–20 of 221 · Page 1 of 12

...
23
Section 69C22
Depreciation13

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

87,000/-) and as per the stock statement (Rs.16,72,63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

87,000/-) and as per the stock statement (Rs.16,72,63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

87,000/-) and as per the stock statement (Rs.16,72,63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

87,000/-) and as per the stock statement (Rs.16,72,63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1893/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey &
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. In fact, in respect of all the sundry creditors, the Assessing Officer had either received the reply in response to notice u/s 133(6) or appeared in person in response to the summons u/s 131 and confirmed the transactions. The case of the Assessing Officer was clearly narrated vide para 5 of the assessment

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1954/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey &
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. In fact, in respect of all the sundry creditors, the Assessing Officer had either received the reply in response to notice u/s 133(6) or appeared in person in response to the summons u/s 131 and confirmed the transactions. The case of the Assessing Officer was clearly narrated vide para 5 of the assessment

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1763/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 143(3)

87,68,644/- in respect of international transaction of Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., payment of Regional Service Charges pertaining to five intra- group services, whose ALP has been determined by the TPO at Nil. 6. The TPO in para 9.18 of his order took note of the fact that the issue is similar to that pertaining

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1736/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 143(3)

87,68,644/- in respect of international transaction of Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., payment of Regional Service Charges pertaining to five intra- group services, whose ALP has been determined by the TPO at Nil. 6. The TPO in para 9.18 of his order took note of the fact that the issue is similar to that pertaining

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

ITA 676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

87,000/-. That being the case, we proceed to decide the assessee’s former ITA No. 676/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 as the “lead” one for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Both the learned Representatives at this stage invited our attention to the lower appellate discussion affirming the impugned section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.1

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 677/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

87,000/-. That being the case, we proceed to decide the assessee’s former ITA No. 676/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 as the “lead” one for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Both the learned Representatives at this stage invited our attention to the lower appellate discussion affirming the impugned section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.1

V J & SONS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: S/Shri Abhijit Halder and Sudendu Das
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 8. Before deciding the issue, reference is also made to the facts in Hem Kiran Diesels. 9. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was carrying on the business of distributing spare parts of MICO on wholesale basis and was also 6 V J & Sons & Anr. doing workshop activity for automobile diesel

HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 131/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: S/Shri Abhijit Halder and Sudendu Das
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 8. Before deciding the issue, reference is also made to the facts in Hem Kiran Diesels. 9. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was carrying on the business of distributing spare parts of MICO on wholesale basis and was also 6 V J & Sons & Anr. doing workshop activity for automobile diesel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , NASHIK vs. SMT. PRIYA K. JAGTIYANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHOR C. JAGTIYANI, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. Smt. Priya K. Jagtiyani L/H Of Late Kishor Chelaram Jagtiyani Office No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shalimar Chowk, Shivaji Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422001 Pan: Adepj7743C

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit HalderFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 68

68,958/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the stamp duty valuation of Basement sold was ₹ 1.44 crores as against the sale value declared by assessee at ₹ 66,51,000/- and observed that the difference of ₹ 78,02,000/- was taxable under section 50C of the Act. The assessee in support of its claim that it was business income, filed

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

87,250/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee was unable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MUKUND MANOHAR SANGAMNERKAR, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 1092/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1092/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Mukund Manohar Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1092/Pun/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukund Manohar Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Abhay A. Avchat Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 gets invoked? 2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act (inadvertently mentioned as u/s 68 in assessment order) on account of the FD/investments not recorded in the books of account, without considering

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2261/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 132Section 68

87,500/- introduced in the current assessment year is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act and added

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2260/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 132Section 68

87,500/- introduced in the current assessment year is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act and added

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2262/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 132Section 68

87,500/- introduced in the current assessment year is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act and added

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 Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the same or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O.. the sum so credited