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.

95 results for “section 68”+ Section 251(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi789Mumbai735Karnataka471Ahmedabad214Jaipur195Bangalore195Chennai129Hyderabad104Kolkata103Raipur102Chandigarh102Surat95Pune66Indore66Cochin59Rajkot44Nagpur44Lucknow40Guwahati35Telangana35Visakhapatnam24Calcutta18Patna13Amritsar12Cuttack10Allahabad9Panaji9Jodhpur8Agra7Dehradun7Rajasthan5Kerala5Ranchi4SC4Jabalpur4Varanasi4Orissa3Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 68105Addition to Income93Section 143(3)78Section 14733Section 14832Unexplained Cash Credit29Disallowance28Section 133(6)17Section 254(1)17

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

251(1) of the Act for the benefit of telescoping of income/outgoings. The benefit of the telescoping was not given to the assessee as the assessee had not, filed any return of income. No balance sheet had been filed by the assessee to show the assets and liabilities. The income from the various sources earned by the assessee i.e., income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 1(3), SURAT vs. RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP, SURAT

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

Section 143(2)15
Section 26315
Survey u/s 133A14

In the result, the ground No

ITA 375/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

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

251-Guj), the Hon’ble High Court held that when loan amount has been repaid by the assessee in the immediately next year and the department has accepted the repayment of such loan without proving it, no addition can under section 68 can be made. Further, 24. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussions

RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 257/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

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

251-Guj), the Hon’ble High Court held that when loan amount has been repaid by the assessee in the immediately next year and the department has accepted the repayment of such loan without proving it, no addition can under section 68 can be made. Further, 24. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussions

M/S CHHANABHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 757/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 41(1)Section 68

251(1)(a) of the Act at pages 5 and 6 of the appellate order and observed that it empowers the CIT(A) to enhance the assessment. Since the impugned 2 creditors were not genuine, he observed that it was proper to invoke Section 41(1) of the Act instead of Section 68

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

1,965,524 758,004 10. We have also carefully gone through the copy of ledger account of all the aforementioned creditors. We find that inadvertently the tax auditor has treated the aforementioned persons under the head “unsecured loan” whereas, in fact, all the above persons are “trade creditors” and with whom the assessee has done some contract business including

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 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

1) In respect of M/s Momentum Real Estate Pvt Ltd, the assessee has furnished the following evidences: (a) share application form (paper book pages 112-114) (b) Minutes of Board meeting (pb 15) (c ) Share certificate (pb 116) (d) Relevant bank statement (pb 117-118) (e) Acknowledgement of return of income (pb 119) (f) Audit report alongwith financial statement

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: of Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)

68,753/- to the income of assessee by not allowing the amount claimed as application of income & accumulation of income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, even otherwise also the addition if any can be made in respect of net income i.e. after allowing the experience and that gross amount

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 338/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

68' - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed 338/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Vitrag Prints addition - On instant appeal, it was seen that Assessing Officer went to root of issue; made inquiries and brought on record that brought forward alleged sundry creditors and current year's creditors were not genuine - Further, assessee never tried to reconcile difference of brought forward balances nor produced any bills of purchase

M/S. PARV CORPORATION,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1697/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1697Ahd/2011: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Parv Corporation, V Income Tax Officer 2/2767 Kabitpura Opp. Khetrapal . Ward 2(4) Surat Mandir, Surat Pan: Aahfp 3720F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri P.S. Chaudhary, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 05.09.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2018

Section 133(6)Section 41Section 41(1)

1) are satisfied so as to bring the impugned addition within its ambit. In view of this matter, the addition Rs. 5,22,000 sustained by the CIT (A) is accordingly deleted. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 11. Ground No. 2 States that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 465/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 467/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 466/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 468/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

section 68 of the Act. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. 9. CIT (A). The findings given by the CIT (A) in his appellate order is reproduced as under: “7.1 The AR submitted detailed submissions" dated 24. 06. 2015 and 28.01.2016 and also paper book containing the copies of show cause notice and details submitted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

ITA 175/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and circumstances o
Section 254(1)Section 68

1 of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground No. 2 relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 4890672/- on account of unexplained cash credit. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown advances from customers of Rs. 5308928/- during A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee was asked to furnish

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

ITA 176/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and circumstances o
Section 254(1)Section 68

1 of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground No. 2 relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 4890672/- on account of unexplained cash credit. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown advances from customers of Rs. 5308928/- during A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee was asked to furnish

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. MERRYGOLD GEMS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2020 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd., U-20, Jolly Square, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Room No.114, 1St Floor, Surat-395007 Aaykar Bhavan, Pan No. Aaicm 7912 L Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

251(Guj.)  CIT vs. Mahavir Crimpers 95 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Karaj Singh 15 taxmann.com 70 (Punj &Har) 14. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and have also gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of Rs. 11.57 Crore by taking view the assessee

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 154/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 146/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 155/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this