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.

98 results for “section 68”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,649Mumbai2,864Bangalore1,090Chennai825Ahmedabad737Karnataka652Kolkata647Jaipur615Hyderabad581Indore344Pune340Chandigarh299Surat250Cochin227Raipur139Visakhapatnam111Agra107Lucknow104Rajkot98Cuttack97Nagpur93Telangana88Calcutta74Jabalpur64Amritsar63Jodhpur53Guwahati50Allahabad50SC46Panaji37Dehradun28Patna25Ranchi23Varanasi18Rajasthan9Kerala8Orissa7Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 6864Addition to Income61Section 143(3)54Section 26331Section 14724Section 25021Disallowance21Section 14816Section 10A16Penalty

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

56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to verify all the aspects of the share capital minutely. It was seen that during the previous year 2017-18 relevant to A. Y. 2018-19, the assessee company has received share capital & share premium to the tune

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5

15
Section 5612
Cash Deposit11

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

68 2. 18,83,64,331/- Unexplained sundry Section not creditors mentioned by the A.O. 3. 6,00,56

KATARIA SNACK PELLETS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B. Jesur, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

56(2) (viib) of the Act, which we do not think can be controlled by the provisions of Section 68

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

68 of the Act. 8.2 Likewise, there was an amendment under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act which

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 355/RJT/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

68 of the IT Act cannot be extended to noting in rough notebook which is not books of account as defined in section 2(12A) of the IT Act. There was no case for making the addition u/s68 of the Act on the basis of jotting in impounded documents. Further, the AO has made the addition of admitted income

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 13/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 17/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 175/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

SHRI JAYANTILAL RUDABHAI BHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 151/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Jayantilal Rudabhai Bhalani Ito, Ward-1(3) Bilnath Krupa Vs Jamnagar. Opp: Khodiyar Colony Air Force Road, Nilkamal Colony Jamanagar 361 008. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68Section 69

56,281/- under section 69 of the Act and Rs.10,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved

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

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

section 144B of the I.T. Act, dated 31-03-\n2022.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.57,61,000/-made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained fresh unsecured\nloan.\n(3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKLAL KHIMJI MODI,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the aforesaid issues are to restored to the file of Ld

ITA 116/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Janvi Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68CSection 69C

56,080/-. Likewise there is also increase in travelling expenses at Rs. 21,973/- as against Rs. 5,487/- of A.Y. 2012-13. It is also noticed that during the year the appellant has purchased a new motor car. Under the circumstances out of total motor car expenses and travelling expenses of Rs. 1,92,313/-, 15% of the expenses

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

68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/-\nIII\nBharat I Bhatia\n2009-10\n3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/-\nIV\nBharat I Bhatia\n2010-11\n7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/-\nV\nBharat I. Bhatia\n2011

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

68,19,216/-\n59,92,44,837/-\nIII\nBharat I Bhatia\n2009-10\n3,29,38,258/-\n98,81,477/-\n2,30,56,781/-\nIV\nBharat I Bhatia\n2010-11\n7,81,70,284/-\n2,34,51,085/-\n5,47,19,199/-\nV\nBharat I. Bhatia\n2011

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

68,19,216/-\n59,92,44,837/-\nIII\nBharat I Bhatia\n2009-10\n3,29,38,258/-\n98,81,477/-\n2,30,56,781/-\nIV\nBharat I Bhatia\n2010-11\n7,81,70,284/-\n2,34,51,085/-\n5,47,19,199/-\nV\nBharat I. Bhatia\n2011

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. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, the ground of appeal of the Revenue on merit is hereby dismissed. 13. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing the addition of unexplained purchases

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 68

56(2)(viia) of the Act. The assessee received the bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) and that is why, section 10(38) of the Act, by way of insertion of third proviso whereby the transactions in long term capital gain (LTCG) would be exempted only in those cases where the transactions were subjected to Securities Transaction