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.

1,270 results for “section 68”+ Section 143(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7,317Mumbai7,303Kolkata2,478Bangalore1,599Ahmedabad1,535Chennai1,270Jaipur1,250Hyderabad1,037Pune840Indore698Surat625Chandigarh601Karnataka548Rajkot394Visakhapatnam351Raipur343Cochin316Lucknow239Nagpur213Amritsar211Guwahati201Agra195Patna115Cuttack111Calcutta106Jodhpur105Panaji103Ranchi94Allahabad91Dehradun78Telangana68Jabalpur43Varanasi34SC33Kerala10Rajasthan8Orissa7Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income65Section 6853Section 153A49Disallowance40Section 143(2)36Section 13230Section 14730Section 143(1)26Section 80H

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

143(3)/153C of the Act disallowed the fresh claim of deduction u/s 80 the fresh claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, on the ground that IA(4) of the Act, on the ground that this claim was not made this claim was not made in the original return of income filed u/s 139(1

SRINIVASA FASHINS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 1,270 · Page 1 of 64

...
24
Deduction19
Penalty11
ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

68 are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that the difference on account of exchange fluctuation in the foreign loan is in the capital field and that the same is not an allowable deduction. PRAYER For these grounds and such other grounds that

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2849/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3252/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3255/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3256/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3258/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3250/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3257/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3253/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

143 or under Sec.144 is appealable. Similarly, the various other clauses of Sec. 246 specifically refer to the particular section, orders passed whereunder were appealable. In this setting, the use of the phrase “under this Act” should not mean under any individual section or provision of this Act. 5. In the case of Sushi 1 Kumar v. Commissioner

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the addition to the income to the tune of ₹6,31,788/- made by AO on account of delayed remission of employee’s contribution towards EPF to the credit of employee with relevant fund beyond the time prescribed under relevant

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1219/CHNY/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1220/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1221/CHNY/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1218/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1222/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1223/CHNY/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement