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.

143 results for “section 68”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi300Mumbai193Bangalore143Ahmedabad72Kolkata36Hyderabad32Jaipur30Surat25Raipur21Chandigarh19Rajkot14Chennai13Indore9Dehradun8Nagpur4Jodhpur4Pune3Cuttack2Karnataka2Guwahati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)90Addition to Income79Disallowance58Section 153A55Section 10A51Section 234D39Transfer Pricing35Section 234B34Deduction33Section 14A

SMT. TEENA BETHALA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD- 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1384/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

68 of the Act could have been considered; but then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee, apart from raising several other grounds, has challenged the legality of the addition being made under section 69A of the Act. In support of the assessee’s contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT

Showing 1–20 of 143 · Page 1 of 8

...
28
Comparables/TP28
Section 92C23

SMT. TEENA BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1383/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

68 of the Act could have been considered; but then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee, apart from raising several other grounds, has challenged the legality of the addition being made under section 69A of the Act. In support of the assessee’s contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

ITA 781/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs.\n87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

ITA 789/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs.\n87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay any interest. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay any interest. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

68,35,533. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, commission paid should be fully allowed as deduction. Page 5 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 Grounds on non reduction of communication expenses from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10AA 27. The learned assessing officer has erred in not reducing the communication expenses

MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 793/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 799/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

ITA 1104/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 69 of the Act. xiv. The Assessing Officer was correct in looking at the real transaction with respect to the share application money by lifting the veil and creating nexus with the investment to the payments made by the assessee as found and reflected in the seized documents. The failure on the part of the assessee to demonstrate

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/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 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt.14.3.2016. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore dt.14.3.2016 for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds :- 1. “ That the order

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

ITA 1283/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

68,604/-;\nvi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of\nRs.37,48,862/-;\nvii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B\namounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-;\nviii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted;\nix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and\nx) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

ITA 169/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

68,604/-;\nvi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of\nRs.37,48,862/-;\nvii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B\namounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-;\nviii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted;\nix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and\nx) Interest levied under section 234D

M/S. FORETELL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternate claim

ITA 2217/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 37o

234D amounting to Rs. 3,03,850 be deleted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Foretell Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ("the assessee") filed return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 17/09/2016 with a returned loss of Rs. 22,02,848/ . The Ld. AO passed the order u/s. 143(3) by disallowing the trading loss

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 171/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 170/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D