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.

62 results for “section 68”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka440Mumbai431Delhi353Chennai115Jaipur78Bangalore62Ahmedabad54Hyderabad40Chandigarh37Kolkata37Calcutta35Raipur20Lucknow19Indore18Surat15Cuttack10Visakhapatnam8Patna8Pune8Agra6Telangana6Cochin5Rajkot5Guwahati5Amritsar4SC4Kerala2Nagpur2Varanasi1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 10B35Addition to Income33Section 1132Disallowance22Section 2(15)21Exemption21Deduction17Section 40A(3)16Section 143(3)15Section 2

SMT.MANJUSHREE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 68

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of cash deposited in the bank account. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found from the AIR information that cash deposit aggregating to Rs.35,13,300 was made in the S.B. A/c. of the assessee which was jointly operated by her husband

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

14
Section 92C12
Transfer Pricing12
ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
01 Feb 2024
AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

364/- received from Mrs. Nivedita & Vishwanath Reddy HUF by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, despite

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

section 148 by filing return of income on 26/04/2019. Thereafter statutory notice for conducting assessment was issued to the assessee on 04/06/2019 and 05/07/2019 calling for various details. It is thereafter that the assessee sought for the reasons recorded as per para 6.2 of the assessment order. The Ld.AO issued the reasons recorded vide Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2775/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2776/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

364 ITR 693. Reliance is placed on observations in paragraph 11 at page 706 of PB - 3. In view of the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, Ld. A.R. requested to hold that the assessee had not received ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 68 capitation fees in violation

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

364 disallowed by the Appellant under section 40(a) of the Act should be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act 4.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the basis of year-end provisions, as furnished by the Appellant, demonstrate that the same are for abilities which have arisen/been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR GUTUTIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2036/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010 – 11 Shri Satyendra Kumar Gutgutia, Block No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Acit Circle – 6 (3) (1), Oscar Orchard Apartment, Vs. Bangalore. Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru - 560092 Pan: Adrpg8676J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. Chattaraj, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri B. Chattaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)

364 HDFC Bank - MC NewRs.13,752/- page 365 Page 366 to 367 India Bulls Loans Rs. 12,23,191/- page 368 Page 369 to 371 ING Vysya Bank Rs. 3,97,727/- page 372 Page 373 to 374 Reliance Capital Rs. 6,79,779/- page 375 Page 376 to 378 Religare Finvest Ltd. Rs. 3,25,552/- page 379 Page

M/S. BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

sections which are introduced to encourage the industries to promote socio-economic growth should be interpreted reasonably and purposively and not strictly by a literal reading. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions:- Ananda Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA • No.1121/Kol/2007 dated 9.8.2009 (Kolkatta Trib.) JCIT v. Lotus Energy (India) Ltd., 68 taxmann.com • 364

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

364 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that – Section 269SS has placed restriction on taking any loans or deposits otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque. It is only a reasonable restriction and does not take away the right of any person even to take loan from other person in the manner prescribed under

HEMANSHU MAHENDRA SHAH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 347/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Hemanshu Mahendra Shah, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.51, 2Nd Main Road, Income-Tax, Sheshadripuram, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore- 560 020. Bangalore Pan – Aaits 9873 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01/03/2023 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. General Ground: 1.1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A) For Short) Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 250 In The Manner Passed By Him. The Order So Passed To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Page 2 Of 11

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

section 250 to the extent prejudicial to the appellant quashed or in alternative the above grounds and relief prayed thereof be allowed.” 2. The brief facts of the case that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income declaring Nil income on 18/09/2014. The return was processed

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

68 (Kol.) (TM), the Hon'ble ITAT ratified the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271 (l)(c) for concealing income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the revised return, declaring additional income, was submitted not out of voluntary compliance and good faith, but rather as a reaction to the concealment being detected

M/S ABHILASH GARMENTS & ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1255/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt R. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201

364 2007-08 95,00,000 2,13,180 55,090 2,68,270 2008-09 47,50,000 1,07,635 18,298 1,25,933 Total 3,03,00,000 8,60,497 2,73,070 11,33,567 4. Aggrieved by the action of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), , BANGALORE vs. M/S VMWARE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

364) (8,32,60,734) Less: Forex adjustment (2,02,247) Revenue as per financial statements 1,68,51,47,369 37. The learned AO was not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation and made an adjustment of INR 8,34,62,981 as suppression of income being differential revenue as per invoices(Rs.1