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.

29 results for “section 68”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi250Mumbai161Kolkata145Ahmedabad136Jaipur76Agra63Chennai60Bangalore48Chandigarh42Raipur29Hyderabad29Pune24Indore23Guwahati22Surat10Varanasi10Rajkot10Visakhapatnam9Lucknow9Jodhpur8Cuttack8Cochin6Allahabad5Telangana4Karnataka3SC2Dehradun2Amritsar2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)28Section 14A26Section 43B25Disallowance25Addition to Income24Section 143(3)19Section 80J18Section 143(1)15Deduction14Section 36

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 130/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) (va) of the Act but not by section 43B of the Act. In view of the above the belated payment/ not paid payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI account of Rs.1,68,27,755/- is disallowed u/s. 36

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 139(1)9
Transfer Pricing6

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 60/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) (va) of the Act but not by section 43B of the Act. In view of the above the belated payment/ not paid payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI account of Rs.1,68,27,755/- is disallowed u/s. 36

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

ITA 1179/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 68

va) for Rs.\n3,66,095/-, addition towards disallowance of interest expenditure\nunder Section 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 11,08,678/-, disallowance of\nexpenses claimed by the assessee under the head ‘trade discounts'\nand 'seed purchases' to the tune of Rs. 18,31,21,070/- and\naddition towards advances under Section 68

SREE KRISHNA AUTOMOTIVES HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 139/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sree Krishna Automotives Vs. Dy. Cit, Hyderabad (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aakcs5353H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.10.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.30,53,317/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36 Of The I.T. Act On A/C Of Delayed Payment Of Pf & Esi.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murty, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Disallowance of payment of gratuity disallowed u/s 43B Rs. 68,790 Disallowed an amount towards profit on Rs.59,343 sale assets 5. The learned CIT (A) NFAC deleted the addition of Rs.68,790/- on account of payment of gratuity and Rs.59,343/- towards profit on sale of assets. However, he sustained the addition

DARSHAN VIJAYSINH BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, FACELESS CENTER DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 448/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act by inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the ―due date‖ under this clause; and (ii) amend section

DARSHAN V BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 447/HYD/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act by inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the ―due date‖ under this clause; and (ii) amend section

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 96/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Moorthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115JSection 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

68 of the Act, reduced the addition of Rs. 1,92,33,976/- on account of difference between the receipts appearing in form 26AS and receipts in profit and loss account to Rs. 3,44,455/- and Rs. 6,85,645/- made under section 36(1)(va

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 589/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Moorthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115JSection 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

68 of the Act, reduced the addition of Rs. 1,92,33,976/- on account of difference between the receipts appearing in form 26AS and receipts in profit and loss account to Rs. 3,44,455/- and Rs. 6,85,645/- made under section 36(1)(va

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the said addition by following various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts wherein it was held that if the assessee has made the payment on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1), then

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under : “5.1. The company has provided requisite disclosures in note 46 to the financial statements as to the holding of SBNs on November 8, 2016 and December 30, 2018 as well as dealings in SBNs during the period from November 8, 2016 to December

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under : “5.1. The company has provided requisite disclosures in note 46 to the financial statements as to the holding of SBNs on November 8, 2016 and December 30, 2018 as well as dealings in SBNs during the period from November 8, 2016 to December

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under : “5.1. The company has provided requisite disclosures in note 46 to the financial statements as to the holding of SBNs on November 8, 2016 and December 30, 2018 as well as dealings in SBNs during the period from November 8, 2016 to December

C & K MANAGEMENT LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1918/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 C&K Management Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4481D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. Maruthi Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - 1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 04/05/2018 For Ay 2013-14 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Ao Disallowed Rs.58,170/-W.R.T Pf & Esi Payments Stating This Amount Is Not Paid Before The Due

For Appellant: Shri J. Maruthi RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43B

va) as well as Section 43B by inserting corresponding Explanations that although the impugned employees provident fund comes under the former provision only, the same is :- 6 -: C&K Management Ltd., Sec’bad. applicable from 01-04-2021 onwards. Meaning thereby that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04-2021. We thus delete the impugned

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

68,23,313/- before setting-off of brought forward business losses. After setting off the losses brought forward from the earlier years, the Gross Total Income in terms of Section 80A of the Act was NIL. Accordingly, the assessee could not have claimed any deduction under Part-C of Chapter VI-A of the Act, because

HARSHINI EPC PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 399/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 199Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Section 199 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing consultancy services. Assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 admitting taxable income of Rs.37,68,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

68,26,342/ - has been debited and out of which the sum of Rs. 49,94,540/- being rates and taxes has been disallowed by the appellant itself and further during the course of assessment proceedings a sum of Rs. 4,30,245/ - has been further disallowed on account of repairs and maintenance for which the appellant has not agitated

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

36,27,20,363 5.10 10-20 days 204 18,88,04,889 2.66 20-30 days 45 7,11,80,351 1.00 30-45 days -- -- -- 45-60 days -- -- -- >=60 days 29 11,63,338 0.02 Sub total (B) 519 62,38,68,941 Total (A) + (B) 3520 7,10,54,46,805 10. From the perusal of the Chart