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.

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 53Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi65Bangalore59Mumbai48Hyderabad30Chandigarh21Chennai18Kolkata13Indore9Karnataka8Ahmedabad7Surat7Telangana5Lucknow3SC3Patna2Calcutta1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 8018Section 143(3)11Section 153A11Section 80I10Addition to Income7Section 801B(10)6Section 1325Deduction5Section 143(2)3Section 271A

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

ITA 27/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 80

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

ITA 26/IND/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2007-08
3
Penalty3
Exemption2
Section 143(3)Section 80

53A of the Transfer of Property Act for the simple reason that the said\ndocument, having being executed after 24.09.2001 was not registered under the\nRegistration Act, 1908. The appellant had already transferred the immovable\nproperty i.e. plot and had also given vacant possession of the same to the\ncustomer as mentioned in sale-deed registered. Thereafter, the appellant

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 208/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 271A

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply on 14.12.2018. In the said reply the assessee raised factual and legal

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 686/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. iv) Similar type of accounting method (mercantile) has been followed by the assessee from year to year. 4.1 The Assessing Officer did not accept the appellant's contentions for the following reasons:- i) The assessee has stated that the revenue is recoqnized on execution of the sale deeds. In this respect

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

68,13,834 respectively. 27. The facts as made out from the assessment order are that during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld Assessing Officer IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of the following two projects

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

68,13,834 respectively. 27. The facts as made out from the assessment order are that during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld Assessing Officer IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of the following two projects

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

ITA 159/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section\n80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14\ntaxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by\nregistering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has\nto be concluded that the assessee merely worked

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

ITA 59/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14 taxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by registering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has to be concluded that the assessee merely worked

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

ITA 436/IND/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14 taxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by registering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has to be concluded that the assessee merely worked