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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi557Mumbai517Bangalore167Chennai163Ahmedabad143Kolkata128Jaipur108Hyderabad96Pune67Chandigarh54Raipur48Indore39Visakhapatnam35Rajkot35Surat35Cuttack23Cochin20Agra19Allahabad19Nagpur19Lucknow15Amritsar11Patna11Guwahati10Karnataka6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Dehradun2Ranchi2Calcutta2SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 685Addition to Income2

SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 365/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar Advocates, ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 68

68 of the I.T Act. The Assessing Officer's action is, therefore, upheld. The appellant fails on his grounds of appeal. 7. Aggrieved, by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We note that the AO has failed

M/S STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 183/RAN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 133A

68 ITD 407. 5 ITA Nos.183/Ran/15 29/Ran/16 & CO No. 21/Ran/17 15. In view of above, we are of the view that the order of the CIT-A on this issue is justified. Thus, ground no. 1 relating to unaccounted purchase and sale raised by the revenue in the appeal is dismissed. 16. Ground no. 2 is relating to deletion