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.

17 results for “section 68”+ Section 208clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi747Karnataka474Mumbai466Ahmedabad187Kolkata137Jaipur121Bangalore120Chennai107Surat67Chandigarh56Hyderabad54Indore49Raipur48Pune36Lucknow21Calcutta19Nagpur18Rajkot17Amritsar15Cochin13Telangana9SC8Visakhapatnam7Dehradun7Agra7Cuttack6Jabalpur6Rajasthan5Ranchi5Kerala5Guwahati4Panaji4Allahabad2Varanasi2Patna2Orissa1Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 6822Section 143(3)14Addition to Income13Section 143(1)10Disallowance10Section 271(1)(c)6Unexplained Cash Credit6Deduction6Section 142(1)5

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 68

Section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Section 133(6)5
Section 1544
Section 2634

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

ITA 110/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 156/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 139/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 322/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208

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 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S VIKAS SANITARYWARES,, MORBI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 396/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 68

section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208

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

Section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S QUTONE CERAMIC P. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Sarvesh Gohil, AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

208 ITR 465 (Calcutta High Court) and ACIT vs. Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1716/Ahd/2012. Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 2 of 4 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of Rs.16,25,998/- u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D without

SHRI HASMUKH KESHAVLAL KESARIA-HUF,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 752/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

68 are satisfied hence, the appellant has concealed the income by furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee vide his written submissions submitted that the AO has initiated penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as per para 8 of assessment order

SHRI TUSHARBHAI MANSHUKHBHAI DESAI,,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD 1(1)(5),, RAJKOT

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

ITA 391/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

section 68 of the Act. 6.1 In view of the above rulings as applied to the assessee’s set of facts, the assessee has submitted that all deposits are not fresh deposits and he has I.T.A No. 391/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 5 Shri Tusharbhai Manshukhlal Desai vs. ITO also withdrawn cash from the bank account on regular basis

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, MORBI vs. M/S FAIZ INDS.,, WANKANER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Faiz Industries Morbi. B-1, National Highway Lalpar, Tal. Wankaner अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 31.1.2017 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2013-14. 2. Solitary Ground Raised In The Appeal Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250(6)Section 44A

section 145 of the Act and valuing closing stock and inventories as prescribed under the Act and no error or defects has been pointed out by the lower authorities in this behalf. Thus, the assessee contended that the proposed addition was unjustified. However, the ld.AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee. He maintained his view of deliberate

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 385/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the Act, read with the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) observed that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 106/RJT/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable with respect to the additions made on such estimate by the Assessing Officer. Thus in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that no penalty under section

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 499/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee has submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income for assessment year (Α.Υ.) 2020-21. On these facts, no adverse inference was drawn by the assessing officer. The Company has made certain donations, which are deductible u/s 80G, which are claimed as deduction while

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 498/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

208/-) in income tax return (ITR). In support of this, the assessee\nhas submitted before the assessing officer the copy of computation of income\nfor assessment year (A.Y.) 2020-21. On these facts, no adverse inference was\ndrawn by the assessing officer. The Company has made certain donations,\nwhich are deductible u/s 80G, which are claimed as deduction while filing

M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

ITA 30/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Acit, Ltd., Vs. Gandhidham Circle Shed No.280/281, A Type, Gandhidham. Sector No.3, Ka Sez, Gandhinagar- Kutch वष" Ito, M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ward-2, Vs. Ltd., Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 0565 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, Ar. Revenue By : S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 68

68 and disallowance of Rs.43,764 being interest paid on impugned loan. 3. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law as well as on fact in confirming addition of Rs. 6,48,772/- being made u/s. 41(1) of the Act.” 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance