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.

87 results for “section 68”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi259Mumbai200Bangalore154Ahmedabad87Jaipur85Kolkata68Hyderabad49Lucknow43Pune38Chennai36Chandigarh36Calcutta34Indore21Karnataka19Rajkot17Visakhapatnam15Raipur14Nagpur10Cochin9Agra8Surat8Amritsar6Allahabad6SC6Varanasi5Telangana4Patna4Guwahati3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I186Section 1172Section 143(3)48Disallowance47Deduction45Section 2(15)41Section 271(1)(c)38Section 12A35Exemption35Addition to Income

DAKSHIN GUJARAT SAMAST CHAUDHARI SAMAJ CHERITABLE TRUST FEDERATION,SURAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

68 years, has categorically affirmed that he is not familiar with the use of computers, nor does he operate the e-filing account of the trust. The applications filed under section 12A

DAKSHIN GUJARAT SAMAST CHAUDHARI SAMAJ CHERITABLE TRUST FEDERATION,SURAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 743/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

29
Section 143(2)28
Set Off of Losses23
ITAT Ahmedabad
26 Jun 2025
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

68 years, has categorically affirmed that he is not familiar with the\nuse of computers, nor does he operate the e-filing account of the trust. The\napplications filed under section 12A

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

68(2) of the Scheme, judicial discipline requires that the authorities entrusted with administering law proceed on the basis that the certificate granted by the CIT would indicate satisfaction of all the requisite conditions as required by the provisions of the scheme and it is not open to subordinate authority to sit in judgment over the certificate granted

DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

68(2) of the Scheme, judicial discipline requires that the authorities entrusted with administering law proceed on the basis that the certificate granted by the CIT would indicate satisfaction of all the requisite conditions as required by the provisions of the scheme and it is not open to subordinate authority to sit in judgment over the certificate granted

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT GODHRA,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1567/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Ward Exemption V/S. Vohrawad, Godhra Vadodara Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatd 4476 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri b.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 68

68 of the Act is not justified. 5. The initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act is not justified. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before hearing of the appeal. 5. During the course of hearing before

GYANDEEP CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU NOW THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

68,841.00 only. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same while observing as under: 82 During appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed copy of Form 10B uploaded for the year by the appellant trust in order to establish that it has complied with all conditions required as per section

THE JT. CIT(EXEMPTION)(OSD), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. DIVYA JYOTI TRUST, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1224/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Jt.Cit (Exemptions)(Osd) Divya Jyoti Trust Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Tejas Eye Hospital Suthar Faliyaat & Post – Mandvi Surat 394 610. Pan : Aabtd 3401 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 7.6.2019 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-9/10321/Dcit(E), Cir.2-/17-18Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

68,45,899/- which had been applied for construction of the hospital building which was also to be treated as an application of income as there is no bar on incurring the capital expenditure out of the corpus donation which was also treated as income. Various Courts and the Tribunals have also held that the capital expenditure out of corpus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION), WARD-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SKILL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (SDS) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1501/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154

12A(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and thereby allowing the exemption of Rs. 10,45,50,001/- under section 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 I.T.A No. 1501/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No. 2 ITO (Exemption) vs. Skill Development Society (SDS) despite the fact that the no assessment

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12A is continued and was affective for the year under appeal. 7.6. In the absence of any material changed, the revenue is not justified to take a different view of the matter as also submitted by the Learned AR. In this aspect he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Radhasoami

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12A is continued and was affective for the year under appeal. 7.6. In the absence of any material changed, the revenue is not justified to take a different view of the matter as also submitted by the Learned AR. In this aspect he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Radhasoami

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2344/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12A is continued and was affective for the year under appeal. 7.6. In the absence of any material changed, the revenue is not justified to take a different view of the matter as also submitted by the Learned AR. In this aspect he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Radhasoami

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 265/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12A is continued and was affective for the year under appeal. 7.6. In the absence of any material changed, the revenue is not justified to take a different view of the matter as also submitted by the Learned AR. In this aspect he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Radhasoami

SHREE SAURASHTRA VISHA SHREMALI SONI ANYONYA SHHAYAK PRAGAYI MANDAL,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE (NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION VADODARA), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1071/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Shree Saurashtra Vishal Shremali Soni Dcit (Cpc) Anyonya Shhayak Pragai Mandal, Vs Bangalore (Now Ito Vadodara Ward-Exemption) 12/04 Mandal, Roopak Talkies Vadodara. Harni Rod, Vadodara Gujarat. Pan : Aaats 7576 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bhavin Marfatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 57

12A of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, the benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the said Act shall be available in respect of any income derived from property held under trust

ITO(EXEMPTIONS), VADODARA vs. SHETHANI MANEKBAI CHERITABLE TRUST , KAPADWANJ

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 1449/AHD/2024[2016-17 ]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri AP Singh, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Ms Amrin Pathan, AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

68,99,572/- u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act despite the fact that the assessee is not registered under section 12A

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions