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.

18 results for “section 68”+ Section 374(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai787Delhi558Karnataka437Bangalore210Chennai155Jaipur85Hyderabad64Chandigarh62Kolkata54Ahmedabad51Pune41Guwahati28Surat24Nagpur19Indore18Raipur16Agra14Visakhapatnam8Telangana8Cochin7Rajkot7Lucknow7Cuttack4Allahabad4Dehradun4Ranchi4Amritsar3Jodhpur3SC2Andhra Pradesh1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 14729Section 143(3)25Section 80I20Section 14814Limitation/Time-bar10Section 14A9Section 698Section 2(22)(e)8Section 234B8Addition to Income

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

ITA 782/IND/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

Section 13Section 2Section 2(15)

374 ITR 0333 (Delhi) 8. CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation (1986) 11 M.P. Cricket Association 159ITR 1 (SC) 9. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & ANR. Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) &ORS. (2012) 347ITR 0099 (Delhi) 10. Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 9 ITR 0604 (Irib

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

8
Disallowance8
Capital Gains6
ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

68,276 0.25 on cost becomes 0.25/99.75 = 0.25 on sales Total cost 90,95,79,051 Add: Arm’s Length Profit (25.44 on cost) 23,13,96,910 Arm’s Length Sales 1,14,09,75,963 90,73,10,775 Actual Sales Upward adjustment to be made to sales 23,36,65,187 10. The matter went

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 372/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 373/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 374/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 371/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 370/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

374 ITR 645. On the basis of aforesaid facts, we are inclined to hold that additions made by Ld. AO were not valid in the eyes of law. 6.13 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

374 ITR 645. On the basis of aforesaid facts, we are inclined to hold that additions made by Ld. AO were not valid in the eyes of law. 6.13 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 200/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

374 ITR 645. On the basis of aforesaid facts, we are inclined to hold that additions made by Ld. AO were not valid in the eyes of law. 6.13 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 202/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

374 ITR 645. On the basis of aforesaid facts, we are inclined to hold that additions made by Ld. AO were not valid in the eyes of law. 6.13 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion

M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

2) of the Act and the assessment u/s 143 was completed on 25.02.2013 determining taxable income at Rs. 4,39,57,962/-. The Assessing Officer noticed from the balance sheet that the assessee had shown investment of Rs. 93,16,12,682/- as on 31.03.2010 in equity shares of various companies. Out of this, major investment

THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL vs. M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

2) of the Act and the assessment u/s 143 was completed on 25.02.2013 determining taxable income at Rs. 4,39,57,962/-. The Assessing Officer noticed from the balance sheet that the assessee had shown investment of Rs. 93,16,12,682/- as on 31.03.2010 in equity shares of various companies. Out of this, major investment

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 429/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

374 ITR 645 (Bom) (ii) Om Shakthy Agencies(Mad) 157 ITD 1062 (Trib-Chennai) (iii) CIT Vs. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (Del) 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities and also contended that documents were found at the business premises of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and they related

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 428/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

374 ITR 645 (Bom) (ii) Om Shakthy Agencies(Mad) 157 ITD 1062 (Trib-Chennai) (iii) CIT Vs. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (Del) 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities and also contended that documents were found at the business premises of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and they related

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 430/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

374 ITR 645 (Bom) (ii) Om Shakthy Agencies(Mad) 157 ITD 1062 (Trib-Chennai) (iii) CIT Vs. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (Del) 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities and also contended that documents were found at the business premises of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and they related

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 427/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

374 ITR 645 (Bom) (ii) Om Shakthy Agencies(Mad) 157 ITD 1062 (Trib-Chennai) (iii) CIT Vs. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (Del) 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities and also contended that documents were found at the business premises of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and they related

M/S S.D.BANSAL IRON & STEEL P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

68,000/-. Thereafter, during assessment-proceeding, the AO examined this issue. Initially, he made another reference dated 01.08.2013 to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) u/s 142A read with section 131(1)(d) for estimation of the value of investment but the DVO did not submit report till completion of assessment. Therefore, the AO noted in assessment-order “Since this case