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.

100 results for “section 68”+ Section 234A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi611Mumbai398Bangalore253Jaipur112Hyderabad102Ahmedabad100Kolkata60Chennai57Pune40Nagpur36Indore32Allahabad31Karnataka31Ranchi30Chandigarh24Agra23Jodhpur23Visakhapatnam21Cochin17Lucknow17Amritsar15Rajkot13Guwahati13Surat12Dehradun12Raipur5SC4Varanasi2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Telangana1Jabalpur1Cuttack1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14772Addition to Income71Section 6865Section 14864Section 234A42Penalty42Section 143(3)36Section 271(1)(c)35Section 3729Disallowance

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

68,08,860/- of net receipt of margin money on the basis of remand report by AO without issuing show cause notice of enhancement. 20 Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, & 234C is not justified. 21 Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 115B24
Natural Justice24

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 547/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2131/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2130/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2131/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 6Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

68 of the Act, which has been deleted by us, the disallowance of interest cannot survive. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is also allowed. 16. With respect to Ground Number 7 (disallowance of Interest expenses of Rs. 35.21 lakhs), the counsel for the assessee submitted that this interest payment is with respect to loans taken in earlier assessment years. Further

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1590/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194HSection 194J

68, being unexplained cash credits received through an employee’s bank account into the company account, as per report from ITO Jalandhar. 4. Accordingly, the AO determined total assessed income at Rs. 2,14,81,080/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being not satisfied with the order of AO, the assessee

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1247/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1248/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1244/AHD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1251/AHD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1245/AHD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1249/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1246/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1250/AHD/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1233/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 530/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 250Section 61

68,15,907/- under normal provisions and determining book profit of Rs 160,04,09,477/- u/s. 115JB. 2. On perusal of records, it is noticed that rectification order passed in the case of assessee company on 05/07/2017 wherein credit of DDT of Rs.9,53,58,500/- paid by the assessee was allowed against DDT demand payable

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/AHD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts