The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

Section 68 of the 1872 Act, otiose. The propounder can be initiated to the benefit of Section 71 of the 1872 Act only

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

Section 68 of the Act, 1961 is, thus, perverse. 15. Bare reading of Section 68 of the Act, 1961 suggests

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68 of the Act? When and in what circumstances would section 68 of the Act come into play? A bare

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A of the Act can at all be applied to the appellant when the IT Department

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

Section 68 would not be fatal to their case. Even otherwise, Section 68 of Evidence Act would not be attracted

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997. 12) By virtue thereof, in view of Section 68(1) of the Finance

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 of the Act and therefore the provisions of Section 68 cannot be invoked. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the                                                             1 (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del.) 2 (2000) 242 ITR 357 (AP)       CVNR

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Shri B Srinivasa Rao

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 1St July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. Ms. Samrita Das, Adv. ..For Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 23.12.2016 under Section 143 of the Act and the order

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 68 was the exactitude with which the transaction could be pin pointed. The counsel further submitted that the ITA 132/2011

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. Now, apparently the petitioner has invoked the said provision and his complaint

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented