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.

12,601 results for “section 68”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,965 Mumbai2,714 Kolkata1,163 Chennai755 Jaipur722 Ahmedabad602 Bangalore523 Hyderabad461 Chandigarh314 Indore303 Pune290 Surat263 Rajkot179 Cochin175 Raipur153 Visakhapatnam152 Nagpur148 Lucknow90 Guwahati90 Amritsar77 Cuttack55 Agra54 Calcutta54 Allahabad49 Patna48 Jodhpur48 Panaji35 Ranchi25 Jabalpur20 Dehradun17 Varanasi13 Karnataka12 Telangana12 SC8 Rajasthan4 Orissa3 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 6898 Addition to Income84 Section 14770 Section 143(3)49 Section 14843 Section 69A41 Section 25030 Section 26327 Unexplained Cash Credit27 Section 115B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. METROCITY HOMES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 153C

unexplained money of which the assessee is found to be the owner. The material difference between sections 68 and 69A is that

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur

Showing 1–20 of 12,601 · Page 1 of 631

...

24

Search & Seizure16

03 Oct 2024

AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

unexplained credits, money, investment, expenditure, etc., which has been deemed as income under section 68, section 69, section 69A, section

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: \nShri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

unexplained deposit in share capital by alleging that assessee did\nnot produce the parties/subscribers and failed to prove the\ncreditworthiness of the parties. Even though, AO has not specifically\nmentioned section 68 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the\nappeal of assessee has examined the addition as if made u/s 68 of the\nAct. Therefore, before

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 6401/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 5974/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2920/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6070/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERSTAR AGENCY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 5744/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA STEEL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINTEX CONSUMERS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 5397/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANGEL CEMENT PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPREME PLACEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 509/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings