Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

103 results for “section 68”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi688 Mumbai520 Karnataka479 Chennai177 Jaipur134 Kolkata130 Ahmedabad130 Bangalore117 Hyderabad103 Chandigarh83 Calcutta51 Pune48 Raipur41 Indore39 Visakhapatnam30 Allahabad29 Nagpur29 Surat23 Cochin20 Rajkot19 Telangana17 Lucknow14 SC7 Ranchi6 Agra5 Amritsar5 Cuttack5 Rajasthan5 Jodhpur3 Guwahati3 Patna2 Panaji1 Gauhati1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A181 Section 13298 Addition to Income89 Section 80I61 Disallowance55 Deduction49 Section 143(3)46 Search & Seizure44 Cash Deposit26

JEEVAN POLYMERS (P) LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 93/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sri A. V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Sri R. Mujumdar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) where

PASUPARTHY SILKS ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

Unexplained Investment23

Section 153A(1)22

Section 2(22)(e)19

ITA 1688/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

206/- towards deficit in stock and Rs. 39,44,190/- towards sales outside the books. 3. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on account of the physical stock to Rs. 4,60,752/-. Ld. CIT(A) however, confirmed the additions of Rs. 2,80,598/- made on account of deficit of cash and Rs. 39,44,190/- made

THE ADVOCATE MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 668/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

206 and did not claim deduction under section 80P of the entire income. Since, its receipts include gross receipts from Cooperative societies/ Banks/Members and also from general public and from Associated/Nominal Members assessee claimed proportionate deduction under 80P by taking eligible receipts from the Cooperative Sector over the gross receipts, thereby, assessee claimed only deduction of Rs.26

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE ADVOCATES MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 689/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

206 and did not claim deduction under section 80P of the entire income. Since, its receipts include gross receipts from Cooperative societies/ Banks/Members and also from general public and from Associated/Nominal Members assessee claimed proportionate deduction under 80P by taking eligible receipts from the Cooperative Sector over the gross receipts, thereby, assessee claimed only deduction of Rs.26

THE ADVOCATE MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 667/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

206 and did not claim deduction under section 80P of the entire income. Since, its receipts include gross receipts from Cooperative societies/ Banks/Members and also from general public and from Associated/Nominal Members assessee claimed proportionate deduction under 80P by taking eligible receipts from the Cooperative Sector over the gross receipts, thereby, assessee claimed only deduction of Rs.26

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

ITA 206/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 37

68,869/- vide his order dated 31.01.2018. Later on, Ld. PCIT called for the record for examination u/s. 263 of the Act. After perusal of the record, Ld. PCIT held that the amount of Rs.340.45 Crores paid to Pfizer is a capital expenditure and is not for the business expediency of ASPL. On the aspect of the liquidated damages

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 1506/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1682/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 565/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE (P) LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 1811/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1507/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 134/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 149/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

68 taxmann.com 294 (Pune . Trib.), - CIT v Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. [2015J 56 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Shrenuj & Co . Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax- Range 5 (3). Mumbai (2015) 57 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos 134 of 2017 and others Manaveeya Development and Finance Ltd CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015j 55 taxmann.com 523 Having considered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 216/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma

206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1140/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma

206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1485/HYD/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma

206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1484/HYD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma

206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1139/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma

206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 215/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma

206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. 15. In the light of the above reasoning, we have no hesitation in allowing the cases cases filed by the assessee in respect of assessment years

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1723/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri S.P.ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

206,31,19,015 3828,03,81,450 % on TTo of the 2.05% 5.38% company (DRL) Corporate overhead 2,59,74,074 6,81.66,106 expenditure allocated on the basis of % Hence, these corporate overhead expenditure needs to be allocated based on the turnover as per the table above. 4 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. The profits eligible for deduction after