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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 80Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad20Bangalore11Mumbai10Delhi6Jaipur5Surat2Calcutta1Patna1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 35D12Deduction5Addition to Income5Section 804Section 69C4Section 14A4Disallowance4Section 1473Section 1482Section 143(3)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA-740/2008HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 80

80E observed as under:- “It is not possible to accept the view that section 72 has no bearing on or is unconnected with, the computation of total income of an assessee under the head “Profit and Gains of Business or Profession”. Actually section 72(1) provides that where the net result of computation under the head “Profit

ACIT, KARNAL vs. M/S GALAXY GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL TRSUT, KURUKSHETRA

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2
ITA 2652/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri. C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Galaxy Global Educational Trust Central Circle Village Dinarpur Vs. Karnal Kurukshetra

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Jain
Section 11Section 13Section 68Section 69Section 69C

68 or 69C of the Act. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the letters placed at page 94,95 & 96 of Revenue Paper Book 1 are not credible and without any resolution by the donor company thus these amount cannot be relied in favour of the assessee. 4 4. The Ld. DR also pointed out that as per seized document

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

68,09,126/- 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2006-07 and allowed the deduction under section 10B of the Act claimed by the assessee with following observations: “8.1.3 The AO allowed the deduction u/s 10B with reference to the global profits of the assessee as a whole and not with