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.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 270Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi220Mumbai204Jaipur66Ahmedabad54Hyderabad50Bangalore38Chennai35Chandigarh32Pune31Rajkot27Lucknow20Indore16Guwahati16Surat15Kolkata11Nagpur9Raipur8Agra5Cochin4Patna3Jodhpur3Cuttack3Amritsar2Dehradun2Allahabad1Ranchi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 270A9Section 688Section 80P8Section 139(1)4Section 2633Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 1442Section 2502Section 80A(5)

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271A
2
Disallowance2
Section 68
Section 69

68, section 69, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D. The penalty proceedings should have been initiated u/s 271AAC in place of penalty u/s 270A

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 401/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

section 68 of the Act. The AO also made a disallowance of Rs. 15,36,360/- by disallowance of expenditure. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order had dismissed the appeal ex-parte after passing a reasoned order. SP No. 55/Coch/2025 Venus Industries vs. ACIT

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 402/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

section 68 of the Act. The AO also made a disallowance of Rs. 15,36,360/- by disallowance of expenditure. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order had dismissed the appeal ex-parte after passing a reasoned order. SP No. 55/Coch/2025 Venus Industries vs. ACIT

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

68,81,663/-. Unless the delay in return filing is condoned, the deduction u/s. 80P cannot be availed by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above, the claim of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties