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.

132 results for “section 68”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,581Mumbai1,487Kolkata521Karnataka499Ahmedabad424Bangalore390Jaipur383Chennai362Hyderabad290Surat188Chandigarh183Indore175Pune164Raipur144Rajkot132Cochin114Amritsar91Nagpur74Lucknow74Patna56Visakhapatnam55Agra54Calcutta54Guwahati51Jodhpur45Allahabad40Telangana40Cuttack26SC25Jabalpur18Dehradun16Ranchi10Panaji9Varanasi8Rajasthan5Orissa5Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14773Section 6869Addition to Income62Section 143(3)50Section 14449Section 25042Section 26333Section 14823Cash Deposit23Section 40

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 was inserted with effect from 01.04.2013 and as per the said proviso, the assessee needs to prove “Source of the Source”. The ld DR pointed out that considering the contents of the assessment order, neither the assessing officer examined the “Source of the Source”, nor assessee has submitted documents/evidences to explain “Source of the Source”. Before making investment

Showing 1–20 of 132 · Page 1 of 7

22
Survey u/s 133A20
Unexplained Cash Credit20

VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 68

144 of the Act determining total income of " 26,12,75,610/- after making the following additions: I.T.A No. 117/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT Sr. Amount (Rs.) Nature Section No. 1. 7,75,000 Unexplained Gift 68

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

ITA 806/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with\nrespect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner\nas per the following procedure, namely:\n(xvi) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment\norder in accordance with the risk management strategy specified by the Board

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

SMT. RASHMI SANJEEV BANGAD,GAMDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM

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

ITA 62/RJT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 68o

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Ld. CIT(A0 has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 72,96,000/- on account of Unexplained Cash Credit U/s. 68

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 263

68 of I.T. Act)\nThe assessee has not furnished any explanation on Income Tax expenses that have been\nclaimed to the tune of Rs.8850/- and debited to the P&L_A/c_during the year under\nconsideration. It is an inadmissible item of expense not allowable as per Income Tax Act,\nTherefore, Rs.8850/- is added back to the income of the assessee

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

ITA 487/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

144 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts appeal dismissing without considering the facts and merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in validity of notice issued by Ld. JAO u/s.148 which was issued manually and without DIN.” 3. The assessee has also raised

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68". Again, the reliance\nis placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl.\nCIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held\nthat trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied\nsubsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68\". Again, the reliance\nis placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl.\nCIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held\nthat trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied\nsubsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI HARESHKUMAR MANILAL SOMAIYA,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 191/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Shri Hareshkumar Manilal Somaiya, Circle-2, Vs. Prop Of Rohit Trading Co., Jamnagar. 3-B, Milap Chamber, Grain Market, Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. D.R
Section 144Section 194ASection 68

144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. The AO in the assessment proceeding found that the assessee during the year has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 11,74,50,000/- only. The AO, in the absence of any explanation, treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

ITA 31/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

ITA 135/RJT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234BSection 250

Section 144 of the Act. The entire sequence of events as noted above are reproduced in the assessment order at paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 as under:- 4 M/s. Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 1997-98 “A return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,854/- was filed on 30.11.1997. The said return of income

LUNAR CERAMICS,WANKANER vs. PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 226/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

144 read with section 144B of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 on 23/03/2023, on the issue discussed and directed the Assessing\nOfficer to pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiries relating\nto cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s Hari Enterprises, Prop.\nShriHaresh VajubhaiSojitraand if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition\nunder appropriate section should

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI ASHOKBHAI KISHORBHAI PARMAR,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 212/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR)
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI DHANJI L. CHIKALIYA, PROP. OF M/S SHIV ENTERPRISE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 23/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR)
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI DHANJI L. CHIKALIYA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 74/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR)
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings