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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 221(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi583Karnataka474Mumbai383Chennai177Bangalore161Ahmedabad127Jaipur113Kolkata66Hyderabad51Chandigarh42Surat35Raipur31Indore29Pune27Lucknow22Visakhapatnam21Rajkot21Cochin20Calcutta17Nagpur13Guwahati13SC8Cuttack7Telangana7Agra6Allahabad6Amritsar6Varanasi5Dehradun3Rajasthan3Jodhpur2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1Patna1Orissa1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Disallowance3Section 1472Section 682Section 40A2Section 144C(13)2Addition to Income2Transfer Pricing2Comparables/TP2

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 5/DDN/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Mar 2022AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

68,11,169. However, the disallowances totaling to Rs. 2,12,426 have been suo-moto made by the assessee. Therefore, to prevent double addition, the difference of Rs. 8,65,98,743 was added by the AO to the total income. The AO proposed to disallow the expenses by alleging that since the said expenses had been incurred

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 7/DDN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44C

1) of the Act and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 266 ITR 418 (Bom.), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment reported in 295 ITR 451. The ld. AR for the taxpayer also contended that the taxpayer has submitted audit report

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2215/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 68

1,44,77,740/- which works out to Rs. 11,58,221/-. Thus, net income from the sale of Country Liquor is taken at Rs. 11,58,221/- in lieu of the net profit of Rs. 2,86,145/- as declared by the assessee. (Addition: -11,58,221/-) 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who gave