Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

12,490 results for “section 68”+ Section 132clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,525 Mumbai2,712 Bangalore735 Jaipur650 Chennai608 Hyderabad561 Karnataka507 Ahmedabad472 Kolkata352 Chandigarh316 Pune285 Indore227 Cochin179 Surat175 Raipur157 Visakhapatnam149 Nagpur127 Rajkot106 Guwahati101 Amritsar65 Calcutta55 Lucknow53 Telangana50 Allahabad48 Agra46 Patna44 Cuttack34 Jodhpur32 Ranchi27 SC26 Dehradun18 Jabalpur11 Rajasthan8 Orissa8 Kerala6 Varanasi6 Gauhati3 Himachal Pradesh1 Punjab & Haryana1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Uttarakhand1 Panaji1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A97 Section 6887 Addition to Income79 Section 153C64 Section 143(3)48 Section 13237 Section 25025 Search & Seizure25 Section 14724 Unexplained Cash Credit

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

132 and the presumption cannot be said to have the effect of excluding the application of Section 68." The Karnataka

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 12,490 · Page 1 of 625

...

23

Undisclosed Income19

Section 271(1)(c)18

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002

Supreme Court

15 Nov 2006

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

132 and the presumption cannot be said to have the effect of excluding the application of Section 68." The Karnataka

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

68 taxmann.com 368 (SC) and in case of\nShri Anil Minda vs. CIT reported in 148 taxmann.com 407. In those\ncases, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the limitation\nperiod for completing a block assessment under the then section 158BE\n(which is in pari materia with section 153B of the Act) must be reckoned\nfrom

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

68 taxmann.com 368 (SC) and in case of\nShri Anil Minda vs. CIT reported in 148 taxmann.com 407. In those\ncases, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the limitation\nperiod for completing a block assessment under the then section 158BE\n(which is in pari materia with section 153B of the Act) must be reckoned\nfrom

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3361/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4286/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3360/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3347/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4289/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4288/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4272/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3362/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4273/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 17 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 132(8A) clearly lays down the period for which restraint order u/s 132(3) can be in force. Hence instruction of the CBDT limiting the said period statutorily provided by the Act is ultra vires and bad in law. Hence reliance placed by the assessee on the CBDT Circular

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 374/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

132(4) during the course of search, information gathered by the Income Tax Investigation Wing, Kolkata way back in the month of March 2015 and as part of that, statement of various persons recorded under Section 131, post search physical inquiry conducted during 05/12/2016 to 08/12/2016 at Kolkata and the financial statements of the investor companies as well

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

ITA 432/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

68\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's\nDirectors in the course of search under Section 132

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

ITA 433/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

68\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's\nDirectors in the course of search under Section 132

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the\nassessees are stands allowed

ITA 4267/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Section 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the\ncase.\n\n12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter\nany of the grounds of appeal.\n\nFirst of all, we take up legal ground regarding\nchallenging the order of assessment on the ground that the\nsame is barred by limitation.\n\n3. In this regard

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said addition made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 14. On the facts

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act or elsewhere\nexcludes the application of this general provision. Even the presumption under\nsection 132