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.

400 results for “section 68”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,322Mumbai9,221Kolkata3,067Bangalore2,334Ahmedabad2,164Chennai2,019Jaipur1,538Hyderabad1,355Pune1,187Surat954Chandigarh873Indore823Karnataka692Rajkot461Cochin424Visakhapatnam410Raipur400Lucknow304Nagpur285Amritsar261Agra244Cuttack234Guwahati226Calcutta159Patna150Ranchi147Telangana147Jodhpur137Jabalpur115Dehradun104Allahabad103Panaji72SC67Varanasi48Rajasthan19Orissa13Kerala10Punjab & Haryana5Uttarakhand4Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

Key Topics

Section 68108Addition to Income89Section 143(3)53Section 14835Disallowance26Unexplained Cash Credit23Section 143(2)21Section 14720Section 12A20Section 263

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), BHILAI vs. M/S AVNI COLONIZERS PVT. LTD, BHILAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 59/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.59/Rpr/2020 Co No. 03/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

addition of Rs.1,88,03,400/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is correct both in law and on fact.” 3 ITO-1(1), Bhilai Vs. M/s. Avni Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. CO No.03/RPR/2020 2. Succinctly stated

Showing 1–20 of 400 · Page 1 of 20

...
19
Deduction19
Section 133(6)15

PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 260ASection 69

income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

NISHA NANWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Nanwani Shail Villa, Flat No.502, Block-C, Maruti Life Style, Kota-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Atepn5440L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Warlywani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR vs. AVIRAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIPUR

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

ITA 13/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

addition is made on this account. Finally, out of the total share application along with premium introduced during the year for Rs.3,85,80,000/-, an amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and have been added to the total income

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69A

income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SANDEEP SINGH,JUNA LAKHANPUR vs. ITO AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Singh Juna Lakhanpur, Lakhanpur, Surguja-497 116 (C.G.) Ambikapur Pan: Gesps5929Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69A

income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

ADARSH NURSING INSTITUTE PVT LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Adarsh Nursing Institute Private Limited Behind Sejbahar, Housing Board Colony, Near Kushabhau Thakre Univeristy, Datrenga, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan: Aagca6544C

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 98/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

addition of Rs.2,90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts as sales are already part of the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS ARYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

addition made under section 68 in respect of said sharecapital and premium amount received by assessee was unjustified. 5. ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'C' Assessing Officer had acknowledged Tradelink Carrying (P.) Ltd. V. that in compliance of notice issued under section 133(6) all share Income

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 whereby the onus is cast upon the appellant to justify the source of loan, to explain the source of the source of raising the loan which has been held to be c1arificatory in nature

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 whereby the onus is cast upon the appellant to justify the source of loan, to explain the source of the source of raising the loan which has been held to be c1arificatory in nature

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 240/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

additions under section 68 as well as payment of commission @ .05%. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 242/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

additions under section 68 as well as payment of commission @ .05%. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 241/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

additions under section 68 as well as payment of commission @ .05%. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 243/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

additions under section 68 as well as payment of commission @ .05%. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS GOYAL INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 246/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

additions under section 68 as well as payment of commission @ .05%. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

M/S PURVI FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 20/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on irrelevant considerations and arbitrary grounds. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur erred in confirming the addition

SHRI ASHIT KUMAR DEY,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 119/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ashit Kumar Dey The Income Tax Officer Uttam Kumar Dey, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Fish Market, Sanjay Behind Khankar Market,Jagdalpur, Talkies,Civil Lines, Bastar - 494 001 Jagdalpur(C.G.) Pan No. Ajxpd4157D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - “I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 192/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief