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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 80G(5)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai85Delhi77Bangalore47Jaipur24Ahmedabad24Kolkata21Lucknow18Chennai18Chandigarh13Indore9Hyderabad7Pune6Cuttack5Rajkot5Surat3Patna2Amritsar2Panaji1Raipur1Nagpur1Ranchi1SC1Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 80G12Section 3212Disallowance5Section 143(3)4Section 40A(3)4Section 374Section 354Depreciation4Addition to Income3Section 92C

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 227/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

2
Transfer Pricing2
Natural Justice2
ITA 228/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 660/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 658/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 544/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 292/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate &For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 40a

5. The assessee challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) before the ITAT. The ITAT, Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 29.01.2019 in ITA.Nos.665 & 878/Hyd./2018 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for both the assessment years and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the letters filed by the assessee from various Officers