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.

49 results for “section 68”+ Section 12A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi258Mumbai200Bangalore154Ahmedabad87Jaipur85Kolkata68Hyderabad49Lucknow43Pune38Chennai36Chandigarh35Calcutta34Indore21Karnataka19Rajkot17Visakhapatnam15Raipur14Nagpur10Cochin9Agra8Surat8Amritsar6Allahabad6SC6Varanasi5Telangana4Patna4Guwahati3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A156Section 1180Section 143(3)46Exemption39Section 10(20)26Section 14721Condonation of Delay21Section 1020Deduction20Addition to Income

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

17
Disallowance15
Section 14814

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 325/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] vide Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam dated 14.08.1992. The appellant-society is operating 186 colleges/ institutions for imparting education at Intermediate level. Out of the 186 colleges, 80 colleges/institutions were established by the appellant-society and the remaining 106 colleges/ institutions were established by various Societies

JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 674/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Jaya Balaji Real Media Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecb3005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

12A) of the Act, and thus, the provisions of Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked to cash deposits into bank account as unexplained cash deposit. According to the assessee, unexplained cash deposits in a bank account can be considered as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, but the same cannot be treated as unexplained

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2058/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMBAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2057/HYD/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2059/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE ,KUBEER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2065/HYD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Sunku Srinivas,DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

1 of 6 ITA Nos 2065 2066 and 2067 of 2018 AMC Kubeer. registration u/s 12A of the Act. The DIT (E) dismissed the assessee’s application. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT directed the DIT (E) to condone the delay in filing of the application u/s 12A and adjudicate the issue afresh. Meanwhile

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,KUBEER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2067/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Sunku Srinivas,DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

1 of 6 ITA Nos 2065 2066 and 2067 of 2018 AMC Kubeer. registration u/s 12A of the Act. The DIT (E) dismissed the assessee’s application. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT directed the DIT (E) to condone the delay in filing of the application u/s 12A and adjudicate the issue afresh. Meanwhile

MEENAKSHI VENTURES AND HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Meenakshi Ventures & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Holdings India Private Ward – 16(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Plot No.119, Meenkashi, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Telangana – 500033. Pan : Aagcm4362C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sai Sari Konda, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sari Konda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 2Section 250

68[under section 12A or section 12AA or section 12AB].]] 7.1. A “specified assessee” is substituted for "an assessee, being an individual, a Hindu undivided family or a firm" by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 408/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 395/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 397/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 404/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 398/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 403/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 396/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 405/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 394/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

68 taxman.com 205 Ahmadabad Tribunal wherein it was held that where the registration is granted in the subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years also under the first proviso to Sec. 12A(2) of the Act, and that such proviso is applicable even to appeals pending before