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.

36 results for “section 68”+ Section 276clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi504Karnataka442Mumbai350Bangalore150Ahmedabad116Kolkata98Jaipur93Chennai58Hyderabad55Indore41Rajkot36Allahabad30Chandigarh26Calcutta18Cochin17Patna16Surat13SC12Nagpur9Raipur8Jodhpur8Cuttack7Pune6Telangana6Guwahati6Agra6Visakhapatnam5Rajasthan5Amritsar3Lucknow3Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Dehradun1Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 80P47Section 143(1)(a)45Section 143(1)25Section 26318Section 139(1)16Addition to Income14Section 143(3)13Penalty11Deduction11Disallowance

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

276 (Delhi) held that for making addition under section 68, it is not incumbent upon assessing officer to establish

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 69A10
Section 14710

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

ITA 251/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

68\nto 69D are residuary sections and the same is applied only where the amount was\nnot taxed under any specific chapter. In the present case in hand, the respondent\nassessee company is engaged in the business of Jewellery. The difference in the\nquantity of stock was during the normal business activities of the respondent assessee\ncompany. The excess

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 51/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 24Section 244ASection 263Section 68

68 (P & H – HC)\n(vi) CIT vs. Hukam Singh, 276 ITR 347 ( P& H – HC)\n17. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the\nsubmissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents\nfurnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case\nincluding the findings

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 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 57/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 2Section 24Section 244ASection 263Section 68

68 (P & H – HC)\n(vi) CIT vs. Hukam Singh, 276 ITR 347 ( P& H – HC)\n17. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the\nsubmissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents\nfurnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case\nincluding the findings

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 316/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A

section 68; it cannot apply\nin a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its\nrepayment between a particular depositor and assessee.\n8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378,\nHon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

ITA 280/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

section 68; it cannot apply\nin a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its\nrepayment between a particular depositor and assessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378,\nHon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

ITA 46/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee.\n8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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

ITA 49/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 171/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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

ITA 33/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

ITA 45/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different\ndepositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a\nparticular depositor and assessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble\nSupreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 75/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 76/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 77/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails