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.

18 results for “section 68”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,435Mumbai2,805Kolkata929Chennai868Ahmedabad845Jaipur775Bangalore724Hyderabad586Chandigarh376Pune374Indore308Surat303Rajkot234Visakhapatnam223Cochin207Nagpur145Raipur140Lucknow131Amritsar122Karnataka121Cuttack89Agra79Patna65Jodhpur61Allahabad61Guwahati59Calcutta48Panaji48Jabalpur33Dehradun32Telangana27Varanasi23Ranchi18SC14Rajasthan6Orissa2Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income17Section 32(2)16Section 143(3)15Section 1479Section 689Section 1487Section 2506Section 2636Disallowance6Section 269S

KAUSHAL JAIN,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/RAN/2025[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kaushal Jain, I.T.O., Radheshyam Garage Lane, Old Ward 1(5), Vs. Commissioner Compound, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Afgpj 0706 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 69A

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the cash deposits of ₹ 52,16,169/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has also given the basis on which the addition was made by providing a table in the assessment order in paragraph

SHRIRAM MARKETING SERVICES,GIRIDIH vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/RAN/2022[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi
5
Depreciation4
Set Off of Losses4
28 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 147Section 148Section 263

cash deposits of ₹ 4,18,39,194/- in his bank account maintained with United Bank of India, Ranchi during the F.Y. 2012-13. On the basis of such information, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and getting approval from the competent authority, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

SRI DINESH AGARWAL,PATNA vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Sri Dinesh Agarwal, Dcit/Acit, A-506, Bansal Tower, R K Bhattacharya Circle-1, Vs. Road, Patna-800001 (Bihar) Ranchi. Pan No. Acwpa 4107 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

cash deposits made in the bank account made from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 was held by the Assessing Officer to be unexplained and added in the income of assessee under Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

section 68. During the financial year 2014-15, the assessee had received loan amounts aggregating to ₹59 lakhs from I.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd two entities-M/s Bangabhumi Highrise Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Talland Datasoft Pvt. Ltd. The AO alleged that these funds were sourced from cash deposits

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), HAZARIBAG vs. SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY, HAZARIBAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 has been erroneously invoked for the addition of Rs. 46,86,305/- due to the following: (a) The identity of M/s Baba Baidyanath Construction is established with the Partnership Deed, PAN & ITR. Moreover, the appellant is also partner in the firm. (b) The genuineness of the transactions are established as the transactions were made through account payee cheque

SANJEEV SABLOK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(4), JSR

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

ITA 147/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.147/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sanjeev Sablok, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), 4, I.C.Road, Circuit House Area Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adkps 4050 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234A(3)Section 44ASection 80C

cash deposit made in the bank account. He submitted that the assessee had filed return of income u/s.44AD of the Act and deposit was made from the civil contract works and under this section the only profit u/s.44AD of the Act can be added. The assessee was carrying 5 readymade garments business and apparels of different brands during the financial

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

ITA 53/RAN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 68 of the Act. Thus Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 2 in the case of Smt. Madhu Singh relates to the addition of Rs.3,54,000/- made on account of loan received by the assessee from her son Shri Surya Sonal Singh. We notice that the said loan was received during

SANTPURIA ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,GIRIDIH vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 142/RAN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.142/Ran/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Santpuria Alloys Pvt. Ltd……………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Manjhladih, Giridih - 815301. [Pan: Aaics4215J] Vs. Acit, Central Range-2, Ranchi….……………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rahul Saboo, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

deposit, hence the provisions of section 269SS were not attracted. The other argument taken was that there was no finding of any of the Income Tax authorities below that the transaction made by the assessee, in respect of acceptance of share application money in cash, was not a genuine transaction. That there was no finding by any of the lower

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD vs. BINDHYAVASINI COMMERCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

ITA 240/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

deposit of cash either in the bank account of the assessee or its shareholders and these documentary evidences establishes the creditworthiness of the shareholders & genuineness of the transactions. He further argued that the Assessing Officer was unable to point out any specific defect or infirmity in these documents placed on record by the assessee and the reasoning given

VIPIN SHARMA,GIRIDIH vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.480/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vipin Sharma………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Thana Road Suriya Beside Dayal Bhawan, Suriya, Barki Saraiya, Giridih, Jharkhand – 825320. [Pan: Dgjps4695R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Dhn........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.36,12,900/- During The Relevant Assessment Year Into His Bank

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

deposits of Rs.36,12,900/- but no response was received from the assessee. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction in his bank account due to non- compliance, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.36,12,900/- completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

PAWAN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

deposited cash amounting to Rs.12,83,000/- during the relevant assessment year into his bank accounts. Thereafter, the case of the was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 and the assessee did not comply with the said notice. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction in his bank accounts

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

cash has been withdrawn in round figure\nfor deposits in the savings accounts in the names the concerns controlled by Sri\nLal Babu Singh and also towards Fixed Deposits. However, a large number of\ncash withdrawal have remained unexplained.\n4.\nIn the course of search operation, no shred of evidences or books of\naccount have been found indicating the actual

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

cash has been withdrawn in round figure\nfor deposits in the savings accounts in the names the concerns controlled by Sri\n30\nM/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.\n(36)\n2\nLal Babu Singh and also towards Fixed Deposits. However, a large number of\ncash withdrawal have remained unexplained.\n4. In the course of search operation, no shred of evidences

ACIT CIR-3 (1), DEVGHAR vs. M/S DEOGHAR JAMTARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , DEOGHAR

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 193/RAN/2018[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Navin Dorania, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(48)

cash credit as taken by Assessing Officer. There is no question of justifying the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions since these are accepted by the appellant which is carrying on banking business. Page4 When an appellant is carrying on banking business the provision of section 68 does not apply to the extent where transactions are done in A.Ys

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BAJAJ, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhury/Manav Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Deposit & Cash in Hand, Investment 25,00,000/- Twenty -Five Lacs only. Please suggest me how can I file my IT return F.Y.2008- 2009, A.Y.2009-2010 and I am waiting for your suggestion. P a g e 6 | 12 ITA No. 162/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 10 I have an occasion to go through the appeal of Shri

DCIT, HAZARIBAGH vs. SRI RAJENDRA LAL, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 78/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Cross Objection No.05/Ran/2018 A.Y. : 2009-2010 Shri Rajendra Lal, Vs Acit, Circle-2, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Hazaribag Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . & A.Y. : 2009-2010 Acit, Circle-2, Hazaribag Vs Shri Rajendra Lal, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules