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.

96 results for “section 68”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi557Mumbai517Bangalore167Chennai163Ahmedabad141Kolkata128Jaipur108Hyderabad96Pune67Raipur48Indore39Chandigarh35Visakhapatnam35Rajkot35Surat35Cuttack23Cochin20Agra19Allahabad19Nagpur19Lucknow15Amritsar11Patna11Guwahati10Karnataka6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Dehradun2Ranchi2Calcutta2SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)122Section 153A105Addition to Income67Section 13254Search & Seizure47Disallowance39Section 37(1)37Section 40A(3)32Section 8027

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)

b) taxing twice. Besides, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.34,77,166/- in the order u/s 154, thus arriving at a total income of Rs.26,11,20,759/-. It is however seen that the appellant has not filed any appeal against the said rectification order nor furnished any submissions with regard to the said addition in the present

Showing 1–20 of 96 · Page 1 of 5

Section 234A24
Section 4023
Survey u/s 133A19

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 500/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Akanksha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN No.AACCS8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. for Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue by: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 622/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 618/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 616/HYD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 957/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 621/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 958/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 617/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 959/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 962/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 961/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

ITO, WARD-6(2),, HYDERABAD vs. MS AGARWAL FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 279/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri BurraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra &
Section 143(3)

40A(2)(a) & (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 12. As regards ground No. 1 & 2, the brief facts of the case are that the assessing Officer based on the various loose papers impounded during the Survey proceeding conducted on 21-11-2012 in the business premises of assessee noticed that the assessee company during

ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S M S AGARWAL FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1719/HYD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri BurraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra &
Section 143(3)

40A(2)(a) & (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 12. As regards ground No. 1 & 2, the brief facts of the case are that the assessing Officer based on the various loose papers impounded during the Survey proceeding conducted on 21-11-2012 in the business premises of assessee noticed that the assessee company during

DOLPHIN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAJPUR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.165/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dolphin Hotels (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Anajpur Circle 5(1) Pan:Aaacd7740B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Dolphin Hotels (P) Asstt. C. I. T. Ltd Anajpur Circle 5(1) Pan:Aaacd7740B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without bringing on record any comparable case of similar nature or how royalty payment is excessive and unreasonable. We further note that the appellant has got direct benefit from using brand name which is evident from substantial increase in turnover when compared with the Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. DOLPHIN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, RANGA REDDY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.165/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dolphin Hotels (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Anajpur Circle 5(1) Pan:Aaacd7740B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Dolphin Hotels (P) Asstt. C. I. T. Ltd Anajpur Circle 5(1) Pan:Aaacd7740B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without bringing on record any comparable case of similar nature or how royalty payment is excessive and unreasonable. We further note that the appellant has got direct benefit from using brand name which is evident from substantial increase in turnover when compared with the Page

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 723/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

2 & 3 of this appeal. 51. Ground No.4 is regarding disallowance sustained by the learned CIT (A) u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 52. We have heard the learned AR and learned DR and considered the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s 14A @ 0.5% of the average investment provided in Rule