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.

52 results for “section 68”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai156Delhi146Bangalore52Ahmedabad47Kolkata31Pune27Hyderabad25Jaipur23Chennai16Chandigarh15Cuttack12Visakhapatnam7Surat7Guwahati5Karnataka3Cochin3Indore3Nagpur2Ranchi2SC2Lucknow2Orissa1Panaji1Amritsar1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 153A88Addition to Income42Section 14A38Section 143(3)32Deduction24Section 10A22Disallowance22Section 1021Section 132(1)(a)16Section 40

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

928 of the Act and therefore no adjustment was warranted under chapter X of the Act. ix) ignoring the fact that the TPO adopted the notional interest receivable at a rate as high as 14% p.a, which is totally arbitrary, to quantify an adjustment to the arms length price, towards interest receivable. x) ignoring that the TPO adopted notional interest

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

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 133A15
Comparables/TP13

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/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 13.4. The Ld.AR at the outset filed a list showing break up of commission paid to non residents during the year was as under: Vendor Amount in Name of Vendor INR Remarks Country Partner Commission payment for National Bank Almoayyed Computers

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

928 89,09,701 9,67,39,742 2011-12 62,30,57,675 6.42% 8% 3,99,77,626

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

928 89,09,701 9,67,39,742 2011-12 62,30,57,675 6.42% 8% 3,99,77,626

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

928 89,09,701 9,67,39,742 2011-12 62,30,57,675 6.42% 8% 3,99,77,626

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

928 89,09,701 9,67,39,742 2011-12 62,30,57,675 6.42% 8% 3,99,77,626

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

928 89,09,701 9,67,39,742 2011-12 62,30,57,675 6.42% 8% 3,99,77,626

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

928 towards truck hire charges. The AO verified the vouchers evidencing the payments made towards truck hire charges and found that the vouchers did not bear any voucher numbers. Further payments to the extent of Rs.1,51,11,864/- were payments made in excess of Rs.20,000/- by cash and were liable to be disallowed u/s.40A(3) of the Income

M/S. NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

928,804,703 Net -101,57,68,259 -47,20,15,655 -86,51,58,515 -395,454,257 -381,802,506 profit/tLoss) Percentage of 33.73 32.40 30.48 34.34 40.18 -12.96% -7.82% -11.72% -16.5% Gross profit and -19.24% Net Profit 22,24,30,862 NIL NIL NIL Sourcing Commission 27,65,51,262 paid So, the logic of not charging

CORP ATTIRE,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

928,804,703 Net -101,57,68,259 -47,20,15,655 -86,51,58,515 -395,454,257 -381,802,506 profit/tLoss) Percentage of 33.73 32.40 30.48 34.34 40.18 -12.96% -7.82% -11.72% -16.5% Gross profit and -19.24% Net Profit 22,24,30,862 NIL NIL NIL Sourcing Commission 27,65,51,262 paid So, the logic of not charging

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 176/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 931/BANG/2017[2008 - 09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 174/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 929/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 928/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 175/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 930/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Mehta, Director
Section 10Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 1O

68,656/-is not taxable as it is not real income of the appellant and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Granting of correct amount of deduction under Section 1OAA of the Act. a) The authorities below erred in not granting correct deduction under section

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 340/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Assistant No. 4, Batavia Commissioner Chambers, Of Income Tax, Kumara Park Road, Central Circle – Kumara Park East, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr8642N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Surya Tejas, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Surya Tejas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 234D

68,656 2011-12 29,73,46,928 2013-14 43,72,04,622 2014-15 45,02,26,725 2015-16 29,04,03,076 3.2 The Ld.AO also noted that assessee was not following the mercantile system of accounting in regards to ICDs. However in respect of the overall business, assessee followed mercantile system. The Ld.AO thus rejected

NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

section 234B of the Act 6. Ground No. 1 and 2 being general does not warrant separate adjudication. Ground No.14 is not pressed and hence dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.15 & and 16 are consequential. Out of the 8 grounds raised for TP adjustment, the assessee vide Ground No.7 (a) Page 4 of 24 sought exclusion of 13 companies

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate

68,41,300/-. Thus the difference between he assessee’s valuation and the DVO’s valuation is only Rs. 15,928/-. Since it is a matter of estimate and the DVO’s valuation is based on estimated rates and not on the actual ITA Nos. 259 & 295/Bang/2014 Page 62 of 76 expenditure therefore, this small difference between the assessee