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.

285 results for “section 68”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi399Mumbai328Bangalore285Kolkata118Ahmedabad96Hyderabad81Pune61Chennai43Jaipur39Chandigarh31Lucknow22Indore19Rajkot11Cuttack11Surat11Nagpur6Varanasi6Agra4Cochin4Karnataka3Panaji3Patna3Visakhapatnam3Allahabad2Guwahati2Raipur2Calcutta2Amritsar2Jabalpur2Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income67Transfer Pricing60Section 10A57Comparables/TP56Deduction41Section 92C40Disallowance34Section 10B33Section 40

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction

Showing 1–20 of 285 · Page 1 of 15

...
26
Section 234B19
Section 143(2)18

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 608/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

68,696 for the year before setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and declaring income of Rs.1,00,16,037 after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26,09,261 and deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.12,43,398. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1332/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

68,696 for the year before setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and declaring income of Rs.1,00,16,037 after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26,09,261 and deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.12,43,398. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26

M/S INTERNATIONAL STONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 539/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

68,696 for the year before setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and declaring income of Rs.1,00,16,037 after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26,09,261 and deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.12,43,398. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26

M/S |NTERNATIONAL STONES I P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1474/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

68,696 for the year before setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and declaring income of Rs.1,00,16,037 after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26,09,261 and deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.12,43,398. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26

M/S INTERNATIONAL STONES I P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1475/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

68,696 for the year before setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and declaring income of Rs.1,00,16,037 after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26,09,261 and deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.12,43,398. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.26

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

10B. 18. The authorities below erred in adding Rs. 79,68,350/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 19. The authorities below erred in relying on material and statements without furnishing the same to the assessee before passing the assessment order. 20. The authorities below erred in relying on statements without providing opportunity to cross examine

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R
Section 10ASection 139

10B and could not be taxed separately under section 56". Interest income earned by the Company of parking surplus funds with bank by special category of assessee i.e. SEZ unit covered under Section 10AA of the Act. was integral part export business activity and business decision taken in view of the commercial expediency. Hence such interest income earned

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

10B or under Chapter VI-A will be allowed in respect of the amount of income, by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under subsection." From the Memo Explaining the Provisions of Finance Bill, 2006 as well as from the literal meaning of the word 'enhanced1, it is clear that if income increased

M/S. K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1266/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

68. The assessee has two 100 EOUs. The AO found that the EOU-I and SEZ units suffered losses. The assessee claimed relief u/s 10B in respect of the income earned by its profit-making EOU i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1103/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

68. The assessee has two 100 EOUs. The AO found that the EOU-I and SEZ units suffered losses. The assessee claimed relief u/s 10B in respect of the income earned by its profit-making EOU i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section

M/S K. MOHAN & COMPNAY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1093/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

68. The assessee has two 100 EOUs. The AO found that the EOU-I and SEZ units suffered losses. The assessee claimed relief u/s 10B in respect of the income earned by its profit-making EOU i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section

M/S K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1057/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

68. The assessee has two 100 EOUs. The AO found that the EOU-I and SEZ units suffered losses. The assessee claimed relief u/s 10B in respect of the income earned by its profit-making EOU i.e. Unit-Il without aggregating the income and losses of all its units. Quoting section

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going

M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1351/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S APOTEX PHARMACHEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 10B

section 10B prospectively and not retrospectively despite the fact that Development Commissioner granted approval on 16 April 2004. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Ld.AO by observing as under:- “Relying on the decisions of the Delhi High court in the case of Enable Exports

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

section 10A and 10B of the Act 10,90,60,594 As per ROI 99,59,24,204 Less: As per FAO 88,68

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

section 10A and 10B of the Act 10,90,60,594 As per ROI 99,59,24,204 Less: As per FAO 88,68

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 1251/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-1 (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

Section 10B of the Act will be allowed only on the reduced amount. In response thereto, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee; submitted that it was explained that the sale price of insulin is dependent on the conditions of demand and supply prevalent in the market and was not solely dependent on the cost of the product