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.

96 results for “section 68”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi399 Mumbai328 Bangalore285 Kolkata118 Ahmedabad96 Hyderabad81 Pune61 Chennai43 Jaipur39 Chandigarh31 Lucknow22 Indore19 Rajkot11 Cuttack11 Surat11 Nagpur6 Varanasi6 Agra4 Cochin4 Karnataka3 Panaji3 Patna3 Visakhapatnam3 Allahabad2 Guwahati2 Raipur2 Calcutta2 Amritsar2 Jabalpur2 Telangana1 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income59 Disallowance47 Section 10B46 Deduction45 Section 143(3)41 Transfer Pricing33 Section 1132 Section 92C32 Section 10A23 Section 115J

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

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Showing 1–20 of 96 · Page 1 of 5

23

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: Disposed

ITAT Ahmedabad

23 May 2018

AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

68,04,255/- in respect of contract research receipts : At the outset the appellant most respectfully submits that in respect of upward adjustment in with regards to transaction in the nature of contract research receipt from Dishman USA Inc is amounting to Rs.2,96,26,763/- is concerned, the same is not at all tenable as the total contacts research

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

68,04,255/- in respect of contract research receipts : At the outset the appellant most respectfully submits that in respect of upward adjustment in with regards to transaction in the nature of contract research receipt from Dishman USA Inc is amounting to Rs.2,96,26,763/- is concerned, the same is not at all tenable as the total contacts research

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

68,04,255/- in respect of contract research receipts : At the outset the appellant most respectfully submits that in respect of upward adjustment in with regards to transaction in the nature of contract research receipt from Dishman USA Inc is amounting to Rs.2,96,26,763/- is concerned, the same is not at all tenable as the total contacts research

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

68,04,255/- in respect of contract research receipts : At the outset the appellant most respectfully submits that in respect of upward adjustment in with regards to transaction in the nature of contract research receipt from Dishman USA Inc is amounting to Rs.2,96,26,763/- is concerned, the same is not at all tenable as the total contacts research

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

68,04,255/- in respect of contract research receipts : At the outset the appellant most respectfully submits that in respect of upward adjustment in with regards to transaction in the nature of contract research receipt from Dishman USA Inc is amounting to Rs.2,96,26,763/- is concerned, the same is not at all tenable as the total contacts research

MADHU SILICA FOUNDATION,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.R

Section 115BSection 12ASection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 80G

10B for the Assessment Years 2020- 21 and 2021-22. Further, the assessee did not provide detailed information about the donations received and the expenditures incurred over the past three years. Moreover, the assessee did not have registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, nor did it provide any supporting documents concerning the utilization

M/S. DESCHEM TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, BARODA

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

ITA 1551/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1551/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 M/S Deschem Technologies Resources I.T.O., Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2), 106 To 108, Baroda. Shreeji Avenue, Opp. New India Mill, Jetapur Road, Baroda-390035. Pan: Aabcd7163P

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar A.RsFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 10BSection 68

10B of the Act in relation to the income considered under section 68 of the Act. Asstt. Year 2005-06 3 4. The 2nd issue

M/S. ALPHATECH SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2734/Ahd/2015 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 2735/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Alphatech Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, 5, Aryan Industrial Estate, Baroda. Opp. Matruchaya Marriage Hall, B/H. Pvr Cinema, Channi, Baroda – 390 024. [Pan – Aadca 0799 A] Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Respondent By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Alphatech Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5, Aryan Industrial Estate, Ward – 1(1), Baroda. Opp. Matruchaya Marriage Hall, B/H. Pvr Cinema, Channi, Baroda – 390 024. [Pan – Aadca 0799 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Respondent By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017 O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiyathese Are Appeals By The Revenue Preferred Against Two Separate Orders For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10BSection 14Section 263

section 10B of the Act. Incidentally it is to be noted that in the subsequent circular No. 68 issued

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 118/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

68,982/- are not to be added to be book profit of the assessee for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 23. In effect, the appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 109/Ahd/2020 for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 110/Ahd/2020 : AY 2007-08 Assesses

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 113/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

68,982/- are not to be added to be book profit of the assessee for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 23. In effect, the appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 109/Ahd/2020 for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 110/Ahd/2020 : AY 2007-08 Assesses

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 110/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

68,982/- are not to be added to be book profit of the assessee for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 23. In effect, the appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 109/Ahd/2020 for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 110/Ahd/2020 : AY 2007-08 Assesses

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 111/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

68,982/- are not to be added to be book profit of the assessee for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 23. In effect, the appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 109/Ahd/2020 for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 110/Ahd/2020 : AY 2007-08 Assesses

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 116/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

68,982/- are not to be added to be book profit of the assessee for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 23. In effect, the appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 109/Ahd/2020 for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 110/Ahd/2020 : AY 2007-08 Assesses