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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi736Mumbai552Karnataka457Bangalore197Jaipur149Kolkata122Ahmedabad107Chennai100Chandigarh93Hyderabad58Calcutta51Indore42Cochin39Raipur37Surat27Pune23Amritsar21Allahabad20Guwahati18Telangana18Lucknow17Cuttack14Dehradun13Rajkot10SC8Jodhpur7Rajasthan6Visakhapatnam5Nagpur5Agra4Jabalpur3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Kerala2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1Patna1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 404Section 36(1)(iii)3Addition to Income3Section 682

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 253/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 68

section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills and admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery

SEERAM PADMANABHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,ELURU vs. ITO, WARD-1,, ELURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Seeram Padmanabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.6A-2-6, Near Gandhi Statue Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aaqcs9501F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR
Section 68

68 of the Act. Similar additions of Rs.16,46,000/- and Rs.4,7,000/- were also made under unsecured loans and credit balances in debtors account which was also adjusted against the sales. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri Fenil A Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

68 of the paper book wherein the scope of services of the contract clearly mentions “operations / maintenance of various systems & equipment providing necessary supervisory, skilled & unskilled manpower on 24x7 (ie round the clock basis) to man the Plant during the operation and to carry out necessary scheduled, preventive and breakdown maintenance 6 of various equipment of BMH system

THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. AKSHAYA GOLD FARMS & VILLAS INDIA LTD.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 381/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal– CIT DR

194/- and accordingly the profit was worked out to Rs.3,65,51,174/-. The Assessing Officer further noted that from the Form No. 3D report that the assessee to deduct tax on advertisement charges for Rs. 1,02,971/- and finance charges for Rs. 27,526/- and it is also seen from the TDS (M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms & Villas India

THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. AKSHAYA GOLD FARMS & VILLAS INDIA LTD.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 380/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal– CIT DR

194/- and accordingly the profit was worked out to Rs.3,65,51,174/-. The Assessing Officer further noted that from the Form No. 3D report that the assessee to deduct tax on advertisement charges for Rs. 1,02,971/- and finance charges for Rs. 27,526/- and it is also seen from the TDS (M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms & Villas India