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 43Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad29Mumbai13Kolkata10Bangalore7Delhi5Pune4Hyderabad4Jaipur4Lucknow2Amritsar2Cochin2Patna2Surat1Chandigarh1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Karnataka1Raipur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 44B10Section 10B5Section 44D4Section 684Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 9(1)(vii)3Section 113Deduction3Business Income

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. RAM NATH MEMORIAL TRUST SOCIETY, MEERUT

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2557/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Mrinalini Sapra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 68

43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation

HARISH CHAND RAM KALI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee partly

3
Exemption3
Section 12A2
ITA 4240/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiharish Chand Ram Kali Vs. The Addl Commissioner Of Charitable Trust Income Tax Kf-91, Kavi Nagar Range-1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up Up Pan: Aath3018B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri James Singdon Sr DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143Section 147Section 2

68,399/– against the hostel receipts and calculating the surplus of ₹ 60,91,641/– from maintaining hostel for all students which is arbitrary, wholly incorrect and without any basis. 3. Facts shows from the orders of lower authorities that Memorandum the society, assessee was established with the aim to impart education and other charitable activities covered under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2) for computing

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6589/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

43C of I.T. Act which have been considered as in the nature of Royalty/FTS as per discussion above. 5. With these remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under : 15 ITA No.6589/Del./2014 & CO No. 221/Del./2015 Gross revenue (as per computation filed during assessment proceedings) Rs. 25,66,78,189/- Add: As per Para

INDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3727/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S. K. Yadav & Sh. Prashant Maharishiinder Singh Vs Ito 94, Village Goela Khurd Ward-43(3) New Delhi New Delhi Bcrps3678G (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2018

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 68Section 69B

section (3) and (4) thereof], 41,43,43A,43B and 43C of I. T. Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly. Thus, the agricultural income has also to be computed as business income and profit and loss has to be prepared by assessee. But in the case of appellant, he has merely disclosed the net figure