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.

1,038 results for “section 68”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,803 Delhi4,145 Bangalore1,680 Kolkata1,144 Chennai1,105 Ahmedabad1,038 Jaipur866 Hyderabad738 Pune663 Cochin454 Indore440 Chandigarh392 Karnataka386 Surat309 Raipur237 Visakhapatnam229 Rajkot223 Cuttack163 Lucknow141 Amritsar135 Nagpur130 Agra129 Panaji91 Guwahati89 Telangana79 Jodhpur65 Allahabad59 Ranchi52 SC45 Patna41 Dehradun37 Calcutta35 Jabalpur29 Varanasi23 Kerala11 Rajasthan7 Orissa6 Uttarakhand2 Punjab & Haryana2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Andhra Pradesh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)92 Addition to Income73 Disallowance62 Section 6852 Deduction45 Section 14A34 Section 3734 Section 4031 Section 26331 Section 35

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 14/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R

Section 14ASection 36Section 80

deduction under section 80-IA of the Act for Rs. 321,68,86,818/- on account of income on sale

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2047/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R

Showing 1–20 of 1,038 · Page 1 of 52

...

28

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R

Section 14ASection 36Section 80

deduction under section 80-IA of the Act for Rs. 321,68,86,818/- on account of income on sale

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254

deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. 67. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 68

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

68,858/- minus Rs.12,98,11,494/-) has been allocated by the ld. AO resulting into reduction in the deduction to the tune of Rs. 3,75,57,364/- under section

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1798/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate with Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R

Section 234Section 234CSection 271Section 801ASection 80HSection 80ISection 80l

deduction under section 80HH & 80I.” 68. This question has been decided in favour of the assessee. However, we are of the view

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 896/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate with Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R

Section 234Section 234CSection 271Section 801ASection 80HSection 80ISection 80l

deduction under section 80HH & 80I.” 68. This question has been decided in favour of the assessee. However, we are of the view

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

section 68 and thereupon, it was Assessing Officer who had to carry out investigation and demonstrate that those materials were not sufficient for discharging onus cast upon assessee - Held, yes - Whether since, Assessing Officer failed to carry out any inquiry for falsifying evidence submitted by assessee in support of its explanation, impugned addition made

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

section 68 and thereupon, it was Assessing Officer who had to carry out investigation and demonstrate that those materials were not sufficient for discharging onus cast upon assessee - Held, yes - Whether since, Assessing Officer failed to carry out any inquiry for falsifying evidence submitted by assessee in support of its explanation, impugned addition made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

section 68 and thereupon, it was Assessing Officer who had to carry out investigation and demonstrate that those materials were not sufficient for discharging onus cast upon assessee - Held, yes - Whether since, Assessing Officer failed to carry out any inquiry for falsifying evidence submitted by assessee in support of its explanation, impugned addition made

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R

Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

68,462/- 4.5 Going further the AO also disallowed the entire deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act on the reasoning

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1385/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2917/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3126/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. After becoming eligible to claim the deduction, the question for consideration is that whether deduction is eligible to the income derived to each industrial undertaking independently or on a consideration of losses suffered by the service unit. Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act contemplate the deduction from