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.

109 results for “section 68”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,504Mumbai1,251Bangalore553Karnataka495Chennai422Jaipur347Ahmedabad275Kolkata259Indore251Hyderabad246Pune177Chandigarh134Surat109Raipur89Cochin65Cuttack62Rajkot57Calcutta53Visakhapatnam45Telangana45Lucknow39Allahabad38Agra32Amritsar26Jodhpur24Nagpur24Ranchi23Dehradun22SC21Jabalpur12Guwahati10Patna9Rajasthan8Varanasi8Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Andhra Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

Key Topics

Addition to Income88Section 143(3)63Section 69A60Section 14857Section 26353Section 14749Section 80I48Section 271(1)(c)43Section 6841Disallowance

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

Section 40A(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act in respect of the sundry creditors after making a detailed analysis, and on appeal by assessee, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Therefore, the conclusion Diya Fabrics reached by the Assessing Officer by treating the sundry creditors (which are linked with purchases) is bad in law and for that reliance

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

34
Penalty29
Deduction23
ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
28 Feb 2022
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act was brought w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and is not retrospective as held by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014] (Mum HC) and PCIT vs. Apeak Infotech – [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bombay) ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

68 can be made. 10 Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya Vs ITO Further no addition under Section 69A as unexplained money can also be made as the cash on hand is duly recorded in the books of account. The assessee made declaration under IDS-2016 and therefore, the defects if any in the books of account of preceding year when

SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-2,, VAPI

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 3224/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by relying upon the same books of accounts. Therefore, respectfully following the Page 11 of 14 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawal Vs. ITO, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi /ITA No.3224/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the case of PCIT Vs. TAYAB YUNUS BARUDGAR

THE ITO, WARD - 3(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SHRI POPATBHAI RANCHHODBHAI BHADANI,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 585/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: 2. Ground No. 1 to 4 states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

section 68 could be made in the case of the assessee. 12. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loan in respect of Nine person amounting Rs. 35,98,200

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

68. Facts in these years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties, these three appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13 is treated as a “lead case

SHRI PRAKASH KAKALDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this part of ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 217/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Prakash Kakaldas Shah, The Ito, Ward-1(3)(4), 702, Sterling Apartment, Nr. Priya Surat. Vs. Hotel, Athwagate, Surat – 395003. Pan : Abips4373F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

section 68 made. 4. Similarly, with regard to brokerage and commission income, the assessee failed to furnish name and address of the parties from whom 3 Prakash Kakaldas Shah brokerage income was received. No nature of services provided by assessee, thus the brokerage income of Rs.2,39,200

SHRI BHARATBHAI MANUBHAI BALDHA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 240/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.240/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bharatbhai Manubhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(1), Surat, Aayakar Baldha, 11-12, Vs Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Ishwerkrupa Society, L.H. Opp. New Civil Hospital, Road, Trikamnagar-2, Surat-395001 Varachha, Surat-395006 Pan No. Ahtpb 5940 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of Rs.9,35,200 and (ii) unexplained investment u/s 69A of Rs.38,64,800/-. On appeal both the additions were upheld by Ld. CIT(A). However, on further appeal before Tribunal the addition of Rs.9,35,200/- was deleted and other addition under section

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that they have already offered Rs. 19,14,740/- which consists of Rs. 15,67,170/- plus (+) Rs. 3,47,570/- in the income by crediting the said amount by P&L account and shown in the return of income. Thus, we affirm

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that they have already offered Rs. 19,14,740/- which consists of Rs. 15,67,170/- plus (+) Rs. 3,47,570/- in the income by crediting the said amount by P&L account and shown in the return of income. Thus, we affirm

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

200/- for that AY as 'set off as provided under Chapter VI of the Act read with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act in as much as the fact that if the undisclosed income is assessed as business income then the set off to be allowed under Section 70 and if the same is considered under

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 51/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

200/- for that AY as 'set off as provided under Chapter VI of the Act read with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act in as much as the fact that if the undisclosed income is assessed as business income then the set off to be allowed under Section 70 and if the same is considered under

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 52/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

200/- for that AY as 'set off as provided under Chapter VI of the Act read with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act in as much as the fact that if the undisclosed income is assessed as business income then the set off to be allowed under Section 70 and if the same is considered under

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

200/- for that AY as 'set off as provided under Chapter VI of the Act read with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act in as much as the fact that if the undisclosed income is assessed as business income then the set off to be allowed under Section 70 and if the same is considered under

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1536/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

200/- for that AY as 'set off as provided under Chapter VI of the Act read with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act in as much as the fact that if the undisclosed income is assessed as business income then the set off to be allowed under Section 70 and if the same is considered under

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

200/- for that AY as 'set off as provided under Chapter VI of the Act read with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act in as much as the fact that if the undisclosed income is assessed as business income then the set off to be allowed under Section 70 and if the same is considered under

VASUDEV RAMPRASAD BHATTAR (HUF),SURAT vs. PR. CIT, SURAT - 1, SURAT

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

ITA 1/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Court Hearing) Vasudev Ramprasad Bhattar Vs The Principal Commissioner Of (Huf), Income Tax -1, 2010-11, Vaibhav Apartment, Surat. Bhatar Road, Surat-395007. Pan : Aafhv9911C Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

200/- at National Multi Commodities Exchange. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer made his belief that income of assessee to that extent has escaped assessment. The notice under section 148, dated 31.03.2018 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite services of notice under section 148, the assessee has not filed

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

ITA 561/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 5

Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 3,43,200/-, the assessee filed detailed written submission which has been

A.M. SUPPLIERS (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1114/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) A.M. Suppliers (P) Ltd., I.T.O., Shop No. 1, Rajhans Building, Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002. Surat. Pan No. Aadca 3136 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 68

Section 68 or 69 are not applicable on the transaction of assessee, which is otherwise a part of sale 10 A.M. Suppliers (P) Ltd. Vs ITO proceed/business transaction. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  DCIT Vs Ramnarayan Birla (ITA No. 482/JP/2015)  ACIT Vs. Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd (ITA No. 157/JP/2017

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

68 of the Act in the assessment order dated 27/12/2019. 3. The assessment order dated 27/12/2019 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act was revised by the ld. Pr.CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Before revising the assessment order, the ld. Pr.CIT issued show cause notice dated 19/03/2022 for seeking compliance