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.

114 results for “section 68”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,288Mumbai2,769Bangalore1,039Chennai726Karnataka651Ahmedabad631Jaipur574Kolkata552Hyderabad538Indore318Chandigarh316Cochin290Pune285Surat239Raipur124Rajkot120Visakhapatnam114Lucknow100Telangana97Nagpur76Cuttack75Jabalpur67Calcutta63Allahabad58Amritsar57SC55Agra49Ranchi38Jodhpur35Panaji35Guwahati33Dehradun21Varanasi20Rajasthan13Patna11Orissa7Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 153A90Section 143(3)78Addition to Income68Section 143(2)38Section 13235Section 14828Section 142(1)25Section 6822Disallowance20

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 494/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

section 57 of the Act and accordingly, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record. 9. The assessee is engaged in the business of running hotel

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

Section 133A18
Survey u/s 133A18
Unexplained Cash Credit14
ITA 496/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

section 57 of the Act and accordingly, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record. 9. The assessee is engaged in the business of running hotel

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 493/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

section 57 of the Act and accordingly, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record. 9. The assessee is engaged in the business of running hotel

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 247/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. It is evident that the respondent explained the amount of Rs 76,57,263/- as the contribution

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 323/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. It is evident that the respondent explained the amount of Rs 76,57,263/- as the contribution

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. It is evident that the respondent explained the amount of Rs 76,57,263/- as the contribution

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 392/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. It is evident that the respondent explained the amount of Rs 76,57,263/- as the contribution

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 227/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that during the impugned assessment year 34 shareholders have invested in the assessee company by acquiring the equity shares on the face value of Rs 10/- each for a premium of Rs.45/- per share. Ld. AR further submitted that, out of 34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 117/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that during the impugned assessment year 34 shareholders have invested in the assessee company by acquiring the equity shares on the face value of Rs 10/- each for a premium of Rs.45/- per share. Ld. AR further submitted that, out of 34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 50/VIZ/2021[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section 43B of the Act. In addition, Assessing Officer also further disallowed Rs. 6,59,500/- as confirmation of the closing balance of the creditor namely M/s. Electro Mech Engineering Services was not proved by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum ofRs.1,57

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 53/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section 43B of the Act. In addition, Assessing Officer also further disallowed Rs. 6,59,500/- as confirmation of the closing balance of the creditor namely M/s. Electro Mech Engineering Services was not proved by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum ofRs.1,57

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 51/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section 43B of the Act. In addition, Assessing Officer also further disallowed Rs. 6,59,500/- as confirmation of the closing balance of the creditor namely M/s. Electro Mech Engineering Services was not proved by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum ofRs.1,57

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 68

section 68 of the Act. It is evident that the respondent explained the amount of Rs 76,57,263/- as the contribution

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

57,53,620/- towards interest on share capital. It was submitted that as per the section 16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

57,53,620/- towards interest on share capital. It was submitted that as per the section 16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

57,53,620/- towards interest on share capital. It was submitted that as per the section 16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

57,53,620/- towards interest on share capital. It was submitted that as per the section 16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2014-15. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of 2. 3. 4. the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.1

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2014-15. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of 2. 3. 4. the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.1

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2014-15. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of 2. 3. 4. the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.1