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 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai93Delhi80Ahmedabad41Chennai30Bangalore19Raipur19Hyderabad11Chandigarh11Kolkata9Karnataka6Rajkot5Cuttack3Jaipur3Cochin2SC2Pune2Indore1Amritsar1Guwahati1Agra1Nagpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26320Section 133(6)10Section 6810Addition to Income9Section 1478Section 143(3)7Section 1486Section 1314Section 143(1)4Revision u/s 263

M/S. AASTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 123/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263Section 68

35D of the Act and accordingly Rs.16,200/- was disallowed in the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.02.2011. 5. Subsequently ld. Principal CIT-1, Kolkata, uon perusing the assessment records in respect of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated

3
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Reopening of Assessment2

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

68 of the Act in the assessment framed vide order dated 27.12.2010. However, the ld. AO disallowed in the said assessment filing fees of ₹1,05,000/- claimed u/s 35D of the Act. The ld. AR therefore submitted that the issue was examined at length by the ld. AO in the original assessment proceedings. The ld. AR submitted that

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

68 of the IT Act 1961 and hence the order passed be quashed. 2 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited (8) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the directions contained in the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are beyond jurisdiction

ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUXURY VYAPAAR PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1200/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

68 of Rs. 31,69,00,000 be deleted in full. I have gone through the annual accounts and is of opinion that the arguments of the AR about the dispute on disallowance u/s 14a read with rule 8D does not hold good that the major funds have been utilised by the assessee towards investments in share. These investments would

ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINKPOINT DEALCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1209/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

68 of Rs. 31,69,00,000 be deleted in full. I have gone through the annual accounts and is of opinion that the arguments of the AR about the dispute on disallowance u/s 14a read with rule 8D does not hold good that the major funds have been utilised by the assessee towards investments in share. These investments would

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

35D, of the Income­tax Act, 1961 ­ Business expenditure ­ Allowability of [Set up of business/Commencement of business] ­ Whether running expenses from date of setting up of business till date of commencement of business/commercial operation cannot be said to be capital in nature, said expenses are to be allowed as revenue expenditure ­ Held, yes [Paras 6 &7) [In favour of assessee] FACTS

M/S ESTEEM TRADECOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1371/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S. Esteem Tradecom Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kolkata-Ii, 64, Bentick Street, Aayakarbhawan, Kolkata-700069. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan: Aaace 5486 D Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

35D, Chaulpatty Road, AayakarBhawan, Beliaghata P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700010. Kolkata – 700 069. PAN: AAFCM 2908 M Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s. Gurukripa Finvest Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltd., Kolkata-I, P-41, Princep Street, AayakarBhawan, Kolkata-700072. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. PAN: AADCG 3976 B Assessment Year 2008-09 Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Vanijya

M/S LONG VIEW TEA COMPANY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वाक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. ए. एल. सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(2)

section 143(3) out of the miscellaneous expenditure, representing 1/10th of Rs.7,68,13,902/- being the realizable value of advance against capital goods by wrongly and illegally, treating the same as capital expenditure, without placing cognizance to the order dated 16.10.2011, passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while approving

M/S SNOWFALL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1041/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1041/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Snowfall Builders Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-2(4), Kolkata . [Pan: Aalcs 4809 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.D. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 of the Act as affirmed in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We have given our thoughtful considerations to rival contentions. Both parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. It transpires from the case file that both the lower authorities held the director of the assessee and the directors of the shareholders company