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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 4Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi521Mumbai240Karnataka190Jaipur141Chennai126Bangalore119Ahmedabad118Hyderabad94Cochin88Indore47Pune42Kolkata38Chandigarh31Allahabad25Lucknow18Cuttack17Rajkot17Surat16Nagpur13SC13Visakhapatnam11Raipur8Guwahati7Dehradun7Jodhpur6Telangana6Varanasi6Agra5Jabalpur5Amritsar2Panaji2Orissa1Patna1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income8Section 153C6Undisclosed Income6Section 684Section 143(3)2Section 132(1)2Section 139(1)2

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 105/BIL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 106/BIL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/BIL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

4A) is not sufficient for assessment. 1.34 In Para No.5/Page No.2 of the assessment order for the AY 01-02, the AO mentioned name of the persons viz. S/shri MA Bhai, Aathar Bhai, Raju Bhai. Naidu, Shafique Bhai, Dhingraji etc. to whom several payments were presumed to have been made. But then, the notings in this Annexure A-l/4/43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/BIL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

4A) is not sufficient for assessment. 1.34 In Para No.5/Page No.2 of the assessment order for the AY 01-02, the AO mentioned name of the persons viz. S/shri MA Bhai, Aathar Bhai, Raju Bhai. Naidu, Shafique Bhai, Dhingraji etc. to whom several payments were presumed to have been made. But then, the notings in this Annexure A-l/4/43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/BIL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

4A) is not sufficient for assessment. 1.34 In Para No.5/Page No.2 of the assessment order for the AY 01-02, the AO mentioned name of the persons viz. S/shri MA Bhai, Aathar Bhai, Raju Bhai. Naidu, Shafique Bhai, Dhingraji etc. to whom several payments were presumed to have been made. But then, the notings in this Annexure A-l/4/43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

4A) is not sufficient for assessment. 1.34 In Para No.5/Page No.2 of the assessment order for the AY 01-02, the AO mentioned name of the persons viz. S/shri MA Bhai, Aathar Bhai, Raju Bhai. Naidu, Shafique Bhai, Dhingraji etc. to whom several payments were presumed to have been made. But then, the notings in this Annexure A-l/4/43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/BIL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

4A) is not sufficient for assessment. 1.34 In Para No.5/Page No.2 of the assessment order for the AY 01-02, the AO mentioned name of the persons viz. S/shri MA Bhai, Aathar Bhai, Raju Bhai. Naidu, Shafique Bhai, Dhingraji etc. to whom several payments were presumed to have been made. But then, the notings in this Annexure A-l/4/43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 130/BIL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

4A) is not sufficient for assessment. 1.34 In Para No.5/Page No.2 of the assessment order for the AY 01-02, the AO mentioned name of the persons viz. S/shri MA Bhai, Aathar Bhai, Raju Bhai. Naidu, Shafique Bhai, Dhingraji etc. to whom several payments were presumed to have been made. But then, the notings in this Annexure A-l/4/43