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.

51 results for “section 68”+ Section 2(24)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai143 Delhi102 Ahmedabad51 Raipur31 Kolkata28 Jaipur28 Chennai24 Nagpur22 Hyderabad21 Bangalore20 Chandigarh18 Pune13 Cuttack9 Lucknow8 Guwahati5 Rajkot5 Agra4 Indore3 Surat3 Telangana3 Panaji2 SC2 Cochin2 Varanasi2 Visakhapatnam1 Amritsar1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Karnataka1 Patna1

Key Topics

Section 2(15)36 Section 143(3)34 Addition to Income28 Section 1122 Exemption21 Disallowance19 Depreciation19 Deduction18 Section 80I16 Section 43B

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

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

16

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

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

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

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

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

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

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 769/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable….” 11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of shares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the genuineness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to establish the creditworthiness

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

ITA 769/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

iia) to section 13(1)(d) of the\nAct required the trust to dispose of its holdings in the form of shares within\none year from the date of its acquisition. Therefore, the transaction cannot\nbe held as colourable device. In the present case also, the shares\nreceived as donation from the trustee were required to be sold within

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

ITA 1205/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

iia) to section 13(1)(d) of the\nAct required the trust to dispose of its holdings in the form of shares within\none year from the date of its acquisition. Therefore, the transaction cannot\nbe held as colourable device. In the present case also, the shares\nreceived as donation from the trustee were required to be sold within

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhavin Marfatiya, AR

24. Discussion and Direction of DRP; : 24.1 It is seen from draft order that issue is not discussed in the draft assessment order, since the claim was made by the assessee during the course of the proceedings itself, as per letter dated 28/01/2015. The DRP has noted that there is no variation of income on this issue in the draft

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1463/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhavin Marfatiya, AR

24. Discussion and Direction of DRP; : 24.1 It is seen from draft order that issue is not discussed in the draft assessment order, since the claim was made by the assessee during the course of the proceedings itself, as per letter dated 28/01/2015. The DRP has noted that there is no variation of income on this issue in the draft

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2841/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2839/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEPTIONS, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 408/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 3304/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 336/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 3303/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2840/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2957/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 1257/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 337/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Section 11Section 2(15)

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah

Section 10Section 115JSection 28

iia) on such capital expenditure disallowed. 5. Re: Disallowance on account of alleged Bogus Purchases Rs. 51.712/- : 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing purchases made from M/s M.R. Corporation and M/s Savita International as bogus purchases based on the information received from Department