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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 10Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi270Mumbai217Bangalore201Pune59Chennai48Kolkata40Ahmedabad37Jaipur34Hyderabad33Calcutta16Surat16Indore13Lucknow12Visakhapatnam10Karnataka10Guwahati8Telangana8Rajkot7Chandigarh7SC4Patna3Raipur2Rajasthan2Varanasi2Dehradun1Orissa1Cochin1Allahabad1Cuttack1Panaji1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 80I25Section 143(3)10Addition to Income8Section 2506Deduction6Section 1545Disallowance5Section 684Section 143(1)2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 13/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings. Subsequently re-assessment proceedings were initiated and reasons were recorded for reopening and the said reasons were only to examine the amount received by the assessee-company towards share capital and share premium. The ld. D.R. failed to rebut this fact that the issues, which have been thoroughly examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 9/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati
25 Sept 2023
AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings. Subsequently re-assessment proceedings were initiated and reasons were recorded for reopening and the said reasons were only to examine the amount received by the assessee-company towards share capital and share premium. The ld. D.R. failed to rebut this fact that the issues, which have been thoroughly examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 240/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 318/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 239/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 319/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 238/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

SIVA SUNDARI NARISIKSHASRAM AND ANTE NATAL CLINIC,SILCHAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

68,88,045 + Rs. 1,53,504 = Rs. 6,70,41,549 minus Rs. 6,53,17,279), the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Id. AO was not justified in determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,70,41,549/- in any view of the matter. 5. For that the impugned appellate order having