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 173(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi747Mumbai472Karnataka471Bangalore138Chennai126Jaipur103Kolkata91Ahmedabad90Indore68Surat67Chandigarh53Raipur52Hyderabad51Ranchi32Pune31Lucknow29Patna24Allahabad24Visakhapatnam20Amritsar19Calcutta19SC18Telangana16Rajkot15Agra14Cochin12Guwahati8Dehradun7Rajasthan6Jodhpur5Varanasi4Nagpur4Cuttack3Panaji2Jabalpur2Uttarakhand2Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 80I25Addition to Income8Section 2507Section 153D6Section 1545Deduction5Disallowance5Section 69C4Section 702Section 133(6)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

68,760 ….do…. 11 ….do... …do…. 11- 21,25,81,959 ….do…. 12 ….do... …do…. 12- 33,70,10,742 ….do…. 13 ….do... …do…. 13- 27,25,50,393 ….do…. 14 ….do... …do…. 14- 20,70,87,907 ….do…. 15 Subhajit Paul AZNPP5539K 08- 1

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

2
Section 143(3)2
ITA 33/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69CSection 70

1) of IT Act in absence of any finding that the books of account not found to be reliable for computation of income and therefore such additions cannot be sustained in law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the aggregate additions of Rs.2

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA 32/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69CSection 70

1) of IT Act in absence of any finding that the books of account not found to be reliable for computation of income and therefore such additions cannot be sustained in law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the aggregate additions of Rs.2

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

173/- 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 of Rs. 56,53,5721- toward assessee’s claim

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

173/- 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 of Rs. 56,53,5721- toward assessee’s claim

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

173/- 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 of Rs. 56,53,5721- toward assessee’s claim

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

173/- 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 of Rs. 56,53,5721- toward assessee’s claim

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

173/- 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 of Rs. 56,53,5721- toward assessee’s claim