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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,397Mumbai2,315Bangalore692Chennai598Karnataka574Jaipur521Ahmedabad482Kolkata458Hyderabad375Indore291Pune242Chandigarh236Cochin173Visakhapatnam123Surat118Agra97Rajkot91Cuttack89Raipur84Lucknow72Telangana71Guwahati68Calcutta60Nagpur59Jodhpur37Allahabad37Ranchi27SC24Amritsar23Patna14Dehradun11Jabalpur8Rajasthan7Orissa6Panaji5Varanasi4Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 44B26Section 9(1)(vii)14Section 143(3)12Section 44D9Section 94Permanent Establishment4Business Income4Double Taxation/DTAA4Addition to Income

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 111, DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD vs. M/S SURYANCHAL FURNITECH, BAHADRABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

89,500/- which is a significant rise with no reason. Further, the AO stated that appellant has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. Both parties were not traceable at the address given by the appellant and no response has been submitted by the parties in response to notice

4
Section 683
Section 69A3
Section 143(2)3

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

section 44BB of the Act:  Corpro Systems Limited, UK, In re [(2016) 389 ITR 0029];  Addl. DIT (International Taxation) vs Halliburtan Offshore Services Inc. [(2016) 47 CCH 0425] (Delhi ITAT);  ITO (International Taxation) vs. ONGC [(2016) ITA No. 1596, 1597, 1598 & 1599/Del/2012] (Delhi ITAT);  National Oil Well Maintenance Company vs DCIT [(2018) (89 taxmann.com 24)];  Production Testing Services

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

section 44BB of the Act:  Corpro Systems Limited, UK, In re [(2016) 389 ITR 0029];  Addl. DIT (International Taxation) vs Halliburtan Offshore Services Inc. [(2016) 47 CCH 0425] (Delhi ITAT);  ITO (International Taxation) vs. ONGC [(2016) ITA No. 1596, 1597, 1598 & 1599/Del/2012] (Delhi ITAT);  National Oil Well Maintenance Company vs DCIT [(2018) (89 taxmann.com 24)];  Production Testing Services

INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5577/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year : 2015-16 Intecsea Asia Pacific N Vs. Acit, International Bhd Taxation, Circle-1, Kpmg Salarpuria Knowledge Dehradun City, Orwell Unit 3, 6Th Floor Sy. No. 83/2, Plot 2, Raidurg, Hyderabad 500081 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

section 44BB of the Act: • Corpro Systems Limited, UK, In re [(2016) 389 ITR 0029]; • Addl. DIT (International Taxation) vs Halliburtan Offshore Services Inc. [(2016) 47 CCH 0425] (Delhi ITAT); • ITO (International Taxation) vs. ONGC [(2016) ITA No. 1596, 1597, 1598 & 1599/Del/2012] (Delhi ITAT); • National Oil Well Maintenance Company vs DCIT [(2018) (89 taxmann.com 24)]; • Production Testing Services

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5223/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

89,023/-) and completed the assessment. The ld. AO further observed that the following receipts were not considered as part of gross contractual receipts by the assessee :- a) Service tax receipts amounting to Rs 241,32,45,767/- b) Lost in Hole amounting to Rs 80,68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5305/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

89,023/-) and completed the assessment. The ld. AO further observed that the following receipts were not considered as part of gross contractual receipts by the assessee :- a) Service tax receipts amounting to Rs 241,32,45,767/- b) Lost in Hole amounting to Rs 80,68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6173/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

89,023/-) and completed the assessment. The ld. AO further observed that the following receipts were not considered as part of gross contractual receipts by the assessee :- a) Service tax receipts amounting to Rs 241,32,45,767/- b) Lost in Hole amounting to Rs 80,68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6126/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

89,023/-) and completed the assessment. The ld. AO further observed that the following receipts were not considered as part of gross contractual receipts by the assessee :- a) Service tax receipts amounting to Rs 241,32,45,767/- b) Lost in Hole amounting to Rs 80,68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting

ABHINAV RASTOGI,CHAMOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4)(4) SIRNAGAR, SIRNAGAR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Abhinav Rastogi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tcp Market Joshimath, Ward-1(4)(4), Chamoli, Srinagar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan :Ccrpr7932M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Mangla, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 68Section 69A

section 69A; credit entries taken as unexplained cash credits of Rs.17,50,900/- to the extent of Rs. 11,39,922/- and the cash deposits in savings account of Rs.2,67,500/- herein; respectively, vide the following detailed discussion: “8.1 Cash deposits of Rs 2653400 – according to taxpayer it is out of cash available with him on 8/11/2016. Assessee

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

89,260/-. The return was updated on 11.09.2023 u/s 139(8A) of the Act, declaring total income of INR 73,92,200/- and paid the taxes alongwith the interest thereon. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on the ground that no capital gain was reported in ITR though the assessee has sold the property thereafter, the assessment

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

ITA 736/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32Section 43Section 43(1)

section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition