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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,155Mumbai2,338Jaipur872Kolkata742Chennai692Bangalore552Ahmedabad466Hyderabad381Chandigarh301Indore286Pune264Surat247Cochin181Rajkot149Raipur142Nagpur131Visakhapatnam114Guwahati104Amritsar81Jodhpur68Cuttack63Lucknow62Agra58Allahabad57Calcutta55Patna51Ranchi40Dehradun25Karnataka25Telangana23Jabalpur15Varanasi11SC11Orissa3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)28Addition to Income11Section 143(3)9Section 133(6)8Section 687Survey u/s 133A5Deduction5Section 133A4Section 14A4Section 4

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

ITA 136/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

undisclosed investment of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-in the stock made by Mr. Manjit Singh, Director of the assessee company which was made based on the closing stock of Rs. 10,32,24,013.58 as at 31.03.2017 as is reflected in the impounded document being Trading and Profit and Loss account of the assessee company(reproduced

4
Disallowance4
Section 69A3

M/S AAKAR HOUSING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CIR. - 02, VARANASI

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

ITA 33/ALLD/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aakar Housing Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. Circle-2, B-21/62 , Kamachha, M.A. Road, Varanasi-221001, U.P. Varanasi, U.P. Pan:Aahca1616Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

undisclosed sources as is an unexplained cash credit in the assessee’s books of accounts which is hit by Section 68 of the 1961 Act. We are of the considered view that Section 68 of the Act creates a legal fiction which cast obligation on the assessee to explain to the satisfaction of the AO about nature and source

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Chand Adv. & Sh. Ashutosh BhardwajFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

undisclosed turnover/unaccounted income of the Appellant is totally based on presumptions and surmises of the Assessing Officer. The shop of the Appellant was also surveyed on 14.10.2009 near Diwali and it is a tested work by department that sale of the Appellant on Diwall is more than the sale effected any month of F.Y. That due to demonetisation of currency

SURENDRA NATH SINGH,,GHAZIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/VNS/2018[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi25 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Surendra Nath Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Mahuabagh, Ward-3(5), Ghazipur Ghazipur-233001 Pan-Bphps5975K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, Ca Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 68

undisclosed income ignoring that the assessee had no bank account in the past and is a practicing advocate since 1976-77 and has also substantial income from agricultural land in support of which Khatauni of agricultural land at village Tanda and Bairakh were filed. The assessee had shown agricultural income at Rs.25,000 in the year under consideration which

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 13/VNS/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 448/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 217/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 351/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

GALLANTT ISPAT LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. DY./A.C.I.T. (CENTRAL WING), VARANASI

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

ITA 24/VNS/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 148Section 245D(4)Section 68

undisclosed sources by way of advance. Accordingly the Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee has failed to prove the cash credit of Rs. 50 lakhs and accordingly assessed the same as income of the assessee under section 68

M/S TIWARI CONSTRUCTIONS,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO, WARD -3(4), SONEBHADRA

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

ITA 82/VNS/2019[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jun 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tiwari Constructions Dibulganj, V. Income Tax Officer, Anpara, Sonebhadra, U.P. Ward-3(4), Sonebhadra Pan-Aafhj0966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)

section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate of 8% on its gross receipts. 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 33,62,788/- to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made an addition on account of the interest received from the bank

ITO, WARD - 2(3), VARANASI vs. KRISHNA KUMAR UPADHYAY, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/VNS/2019[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi17 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Krishana Kumar Upadhyay, Ward-2(3), Varanasi N-8/239-C, Surya Bhawan, Nevada, Sunderpur, Varanasi-221005 Pan-Aaopu6505G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271BSection 69A

68,484/-. The AO sought an explanation from the assessee but no explanation was furnished by the assessee in respect of the deposits made in the current account. Accordingly, the AO held that out of the total deposit of Rs. 2,53,26,316/-, a sum of Rs. 2,24,57,820/- is excess in comparison to the sales