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.

88 results for “section 68”+ Section 92(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,390Delhi2,379Bangalore710Karnataka582Ahmedabad561Chennai534Kolkata491Jaipur401Hyderabad341Chandigarh262Indore260Pune259Cochin135Surat135Visakhapatnam126Raipur122Rajkot88Lucknow75Nagpur71Guwahati68Telangana68Cuttack67Calcutta64Jabalpur59Amritsar48SC29Agra23Ranchi19Patna17Allahabad17Jodhpur17Dehradun11Varanasi9Rajasthan6Orissa6Panaji4Kerala1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 14762Section 143(3)57Addition to Income51Section 6834Section 271(1)(c)30Section 25029Section 4025Section 26322Section 14821Penalty

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

92,000 cash\ndeposited- Rs.23,23,503/- opening cash balance-Rs.8,68,450 already declared in\nPMGKY) was added back as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of\nthe Act.\n10. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried\nthe matter in the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

ITA 315/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

16
Survey u/s 133A16
Disallowance15
13 Sept 2023
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 40A(3)Section 68

3) and hence, the disallowance of Rs. 12,92,615/- is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The learned DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order. 9. On the other hand

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

Section 68 as applicable to the year under appeal, the\nassessee was not required to prove the source of the source in respect of unsecured\nloans.\n4.The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in setting aside the\nassessment order passed by the ld. A.O. u/s. 143(3) and directing de-novo assessment\nregarding

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 256/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

92,60,168/-(W.D. V as at 30/03/2011).” 17.2 The assessee has also made available to the AO the copies of the sales bills and other supporting evidences to justify the higher amount of gross profit. Such details can be verified from pages 24 to 25 of the paper book. 17.3 All the above details were available but the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 249/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

92,60,168/-(W.D. V as at 30/03/2011).” 17.2 The assessee has also made available to the AO the copies of the sales bills and other supporting evidences to justify the higher amount of gross profit. Such details can be verified from pages 24 to 25 of the paper book. 17.3 All the above details were available but the same

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the ground raised by the assessee in the CO is allowed

ITA 620/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Rjt/2014 With C.O.No.4/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S.Krishna Developers, Circle-1, Business Centre, Vs. Junagadh. 1St Floor, Bus Station Road, Lal Bahadur Society, Junagadh.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 145(3)

68,177/- @3% Rs. 41,75,045/- 2.7 The AO finally made the addition of Rs. 99,60,610/- to the total income and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,64,73,810/-. 3. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted as under

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

ITA 134/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

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 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)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the AO, the assessee failed to explain source of credit entries and also failed to reconcile entries with other material. Accordingly he treated alleged credit entries as unexplained cash credit of the assessee and made addition of Rs.5,10,28,350/- in the Asstt.Year 2003-04. Similar additions have

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)

68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/- III Bharat I Bhatia 2009-10 3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/- IV Bharat I Bhatia 2010-11 7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/- V Bharat I. Bhatia

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 168/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs. 14,32,782/- Being 50 Percent Of Agricultural Income Treating As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act In The Absence Of Books Of Accounts.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

92,400/- and gross total income of Rs. 663/- and Rs. 123 for the relevant Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. Thus the agricultural income held by the assessee are cannot be doubted. However the Assessing Officer not satisfied with the evidences filed by the assessee treated 50% of the agricultural income are unexplained and invoked Section 68

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

ITA 509/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

ITA 510/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

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

3) are prescribed under Rule 6F of the\nIncome Tax Rules. Section 44AA r.w.r 6F prescribes the books of accounts\nand other documents to be maintained. Rule 6F(2)(iv) prescribes that copy\nof serially numbered invoices is required to be maintained. The assessee is\nliable to Excise and VAT and has duly maintained copy of invoices, serially\nnumbered

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

3) are prescribed under Rule 6F of the\nIncome Tax Rules. Section 44AA r.w.r 6F prescribes the books of accounts\nand other documents to be maintained. Rule 6F(2)(iv) prescribes that copy\nof serially numbered invoices is required to be maintained. The assessee is\nliable to Excise and VAT and has duly maintained copy of invoices, serially\nnumbered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDFOLIO REALTIES LLP, RAJKOT

ITA 683/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib.)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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 ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 760/RJT/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

68. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 69. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee has claimed vehicles repairing expenses amounting to Rs.15,51,409/-. Out of such expenditure the AO treated