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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka440Mumbai431Delhi353Chennai115Jaipur78Bangalore62Ahmedabad54Hyderabad40Chandigarh37Kolkata37Calcutta35Raipur20Lucknow19Indore18Surat15Cuttack10Visakhapatnam8Patna8Pune8Agra6Telangana6Cochin5Rajkot5Guwahati5Amritsar4SC4Kerala2Nagpur2Varanasi1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Addition to Income5Section 92C3Section 12A3Section 113Section 2(15)3Section 11(1)3Charitable Trust3Exemption3Section 115J

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

ITA 593/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

68 to 74/Coch/2019 statement under Section 133A has its evidentiary value, and according to him, so long as the assesses has not proved that the contents of the statement are incorrect, the assessment made relying on the statement cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the assessment order, where in addition to the statement

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

2
Section 352
Deduction2

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1,07,08,950/- for clinical trials majorly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust [2014] 362 ITR 539 (Guj). 4.3 Before us, it was a common contention of the parties that the issue is squarely covered by the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asst. CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 1(SC), placing a copy

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust [2014] 362 ITR 539 (Guj). 4.3 Before us, it was a common contention of the parties that the issue is squarely covered by the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asst. CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 1(SC), placing a copy

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust [2014] 362 ITR 539 (Guj). 4.3 Before us, it was a common contention of the parties that the issue is squarely covered by the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asst. CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 1(SC), placing a copy