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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai56Delhi28Kolkata9Bangalore6Raipur6Surat5Jaipur3Pune3Chennai2Hyderabad2Rajkot2Ahmedabad2SC1Chandigarh1Indore1

Key Topics

Addition to Income5Section 80G4Survey u/s 133A4Section 133A3Unexplained Investment3Natural Justice3Section 143(3)2Section 143(1)2Section 154

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only. 4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and intimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the CPC, sett of the short-term capital loss

2
Disallowance2

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

68,17,800/- 5. Ramaiah 72,05,600/- 6. Rajesh 1,24,97,800/- 7,55,85,800/- b/f 7,55,85,800/- ii) Expenditure towards levelling of land Sl.No. Name of the payee Amount paid 1. Rajanna 2,17,750/- 2. Madan 5,77,850/- 3. Anand 2,44,800/- 10,40,400/- 10,40,400/- Thus the total

OAKNET HEALTHCARE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2097/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

68,90,507/- as against the total income Page 2 of 9 returned of Rs. (-) 54,96,67,319/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act under the facts and circumstances Hof the case. 3. Grounds on Transfer pricing issues: i. The learned Assessing officer/TPO/DRP were not justified in confirming the pricing adjustment

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 72/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR
Section 133A

55A, 142(1), 131 and 133(6) was held as infirm in the said judgment. However, the law has been amended by the Finance Act No. 2, 2004 inserting section 142A with effect from November 15, 1972 enabling the Assessing Officers to make reference to Valuation 7 ITA Nos.71-73/Bang/2022 M/s.Puttur City Hospital Private Limited. Officer for the purposes

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 71/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR
Section 133A

55A, 142(1), 131 and 133(6) was held as infirm in the said judgment. However, the law has been amended by the Finance Act No. 2, 2004 inserting section 142A with effect from November 15, 1972 enabling the Assessing Officers to make reference to Valuation 7 ITA Nos.71-73/Bang/2022 M/s.Puttur City Hospital Private Limited. Officer for the purposes

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 73/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR
Section 133A

55A, 142(1), 131 and 133(6) was held as infirm in the said judgment. However, the law has been amended by the Finance Act No. 2, 2004 inserting section 142A with effect from November 15, 1972 enabling the Assessing Officers to make reference to Valuation 7 ITA Nos.71-73/Bang/2022 M/s.Puttur City Hospital Private Limited. Officer for the purposes