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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 115Oclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai20Kolkata8Delhi8Hyderabad1Ahmedabad1Pune1Bangalore1Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 1155Addition to Income5Section 2634Section 115J4Depreciation3Section 144C(5)2Section 144C2Section 92C2Section 73

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115JSection 154Section 237Section 244ASection 250

68,118/-, viz., after including education cess component as well. I.T.A. No.: 223/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Universal Trading Company Limited. 6. Ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to refund of excess DDT of Rs.22,38,770/- paid by the assessee. The facts relating to this issue are that during the year, the assessee had declared and paid dividend

2
Transfer Pricing2

NEW TEA CO. LTD. ,2018-19 vs. PCIT-2, KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 505/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263

68,40,169/- and the interest for the delay of the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) u/s. 115P comes to Rs. 28,04,441/-. Accordingly, the total amount of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) and interest thereupon payable by the assessee during financial year 2017-18 was Rs. 96,44,610/- which have not been paid even till date. Being the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1749/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the paper book, he filed certain papers to explain and justify the valuation of intangible assets at Rs. 325 lakhs, by reallocating the cost of purchase of land and plantation. 7.4.1. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the registered conveyance deed dt. 06/05/2006, gave the value of each and every asset that was transferred

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1750/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the paper book, he filed certain papers to explain and justify the valuation of intangible assets at Rs. 325 lakhs, by reallocating the cost of purchase of land and plantation. 7.4.1. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the registered conveyance deed dt. 06/05/2006, gave the value of each and every asset that was transferred

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1829/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the paper book, he filed certain papers to explain and justify the valuation of intangible assets at Rs. 325 lakhs, by reallocating the cost of purchase of land and plantation. 7.4.1. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the registered conveyance deed dt. 06/05/2006, gave the value of each and every asset that was transferred

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were

MISRILALL MINES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115OSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

115O of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order is based on wholly misconceived notion of facts, and on irrelevant considerations and misplaced case law and, therefore, the said order under appeal is bad in law and perverse.” 4. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present