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.

68 results for “section 68”+ Section 71clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,156Mumbai2,283Bangalore922Karnataka631Ahmedabad629Chennai617Jaipur539Kolkata489Hyderabad478Indore322Surat309Chandigarh271Pune262Cochin210Raipur127Visakhapatnam83Lucknow80Telangana79Cuttack76Amritsar75Rajkot68Nagpur68Calcutta67Guwahati58Agra55Allahabad49SC39Ranchi34Dehradun23Jodhpur20Jabalpur19Rajasthan10Patna9Orissa7Varanasi6Kerala2Panaji1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26354Section 143(3)42Addition to Income42Section 14732Section 6828Section 25021Section 14815Section 13213Section 44A13Disallowance

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

68, 71 and 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Tax on income referred to in section 68 to section

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

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

12
Deduction12
Survey u/s 133A11

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)

section 68 of the Act contemplates where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts

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

Section\n270AA of the Act for granting immunity. In its submission, the assessee\nhas contended that Preliminary Expenses of Rs.70,71,531/- were charged\nto P&L Account as per the provision of income tax albeit agreed for\ndisallowance during assessment proceedings. The assessee has further\nstated that income of Bio-fertilizer and Biogas plants is totally tax free

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

REKHABEN JAYSUKHLAL GHODASARA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 499/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).\n2. grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:\nITA No.499/RJT/2024 (A.Y.2017-18)\nRekhaben Jaysukhlal Ghodasara v. ITO\n1) The Ld. CIT(A), ACIT/JCIT (A)-5, Mumbai erred in confirming action of the ITO,\nward – 2(1)(1), Rajkot, in making addition

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 572/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\"\nHowever, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of\nthe assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity,\nPage | 14\nITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13\nKrushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja\ngenuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made\naddition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.\n24.\nOn appeal, by the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 577/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

ITA 239/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 69ASection 69C

68, 69A, 69B & 69C fall under Chapter VI. 12 8. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that addition under section 69 has to be separately made following the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT (supra) and no set off against business loss has to be allowed. 9. We have considered

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 47/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

68 amounts to double taxation and is against the\nprinciple of natural justice. The ld CIT(A) noted that amount was received\nthrough proper banking channel and also, the same was settled by way of\ntransfer of physical gold and the same are duly reflected and offered as sales in\nthe relevant year's Trading account. This fact is confirmed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

ITA 48/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

68 amounts to double taxation and is against the\nprinciple of natural justice. The ld CIT(A) noted that amount was received\nthrough proper banking channel and also, the same was settled by way of\ntransfer of physical gold and the same are duly reflected and offered as sales in\nthe relevant year's Trading account. This fact is confirmed

TILARA POLYPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED,SHAPAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 68

71,10,000/-, under section 68 of the Act, and for balance amount of Rs. 78,90,000/- ( Rs.1

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

71 (Surat Trib.);\n8.1. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee relied, there is no intimating material\navailable with Ld. Pr. CIT(A) with M/s. National Shroff Company, hence,\nLd. Pr.CIT(A) has no jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR also relied\non \"Reliance is placed upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in an\nidentical case

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, C.I.T. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the PCIT proposed to hold the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 9th December 2018 as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue by issuing notice under section 263 of the Act dated 9th November 2020. 3.3 The assessee in response to such show cause notice

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 46/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

68. In the result, assessee`s, ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, is dismissed. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 69. The Assessee`s summarized and concise ground no.14 is reproduced below for ready reference: “(14).The Commissioner

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 102/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

68. In the result, assessee`s, ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, is dismissed. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 69. The Assessee`s summarized and concise ground no.14 is reproduced below for ready reference: “(14).The Commissioner

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 49/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

68. In the result, assessee`s, ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, is dismissed. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 69. The Assessee`s summarized and concise ground no.14 is reproduced below for ready reference: “(14).The Commissioner

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 144 r.w.s. 263 of Act without affording\nconstructive and real opportunity of hearing.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) grievously erred on facts as also in law in not\nconsidering the fact that such high pitched addition made was without\ngiving prior and specific show cause notice. Therefore, only on this\nground alone assessment order may kindly be quashed

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 197/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 274Section 44A

section (1)] shall,— (i) if his income from business or profession exceeds 66[one lakh twenty] thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts as case may be, in business or profession exceed or exceeds 67[ten lakh] rupees in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year; or (ii) where the business

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 198/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 274Section 44A

section (1)] shall,— (i) if his income from business or profession exceeds 66[one lakh twenty] thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts as case may be, in business or profession exceed or exceeds 67[ten lakh] rupees in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year; or (ii) where the business