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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai164Delhi142Bangalore57Kolkata48Ahmedabad46Jaipur42Pune37Chennai35Lucknow21Hyderabad19Chandigarh16Indore11Rajkot8Cuttack6Panaji3Surat3Amritsar3Patna2Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Nagpur1Raipur1Ranchi1SC1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 6859Section 80G39Section 14A31Section 143(3)29Addition to Income28Section 271(1)(c)20Deduction20Disallowance18Section 12A17Section 80I

M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 308/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

80G and not Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. DR also tried to distinguish each of the case laws relied upon by the assessee on their respective facts. 9. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee had miserably failed to explain the nature and source of the sums in question, so the AO has rightly added

ITO, WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOURI NANDAN REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,, HOWRAH

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 2102/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 27415
Exemption8
Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 80G

80G. Various other decisions as cited in the above submission support the view that sum stands for cash money. Case of Komal Kr. Bader (33 SSOT 58) of ITAT Jaipur Bench interpreting the word sum as used in section 56(2)(vii) has also been relied upon. Case of Jatia Investment Company of Calcutta High Court reported

M/S. MOHANLAL MAHENDRA KUMAR PATNI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1463/KOL/2017[--------------]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1463/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2016-17 M/S Mohanlal Mahendra Kumar Patni. -Vs- Cit(E), Kolkata [Pan: Aaatm 8500 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

80G – Deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc. …………… (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose and if it fulfils the following conditions, namely :— 53[(i) where

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANKAMAL COMMOSAES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2089/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

5. The Kolkata ‘D’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Kolkata ‘D’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ABA Earthline M/s. ABA Earthline Communications Ltd. vs. ITO in Communications Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 1141/Kol/2017; Assessment Year 2012 ITA No. 1141/Kol/2017; Assessment Year 2012-13, order dt. 09/11/2018, held as follows: held

ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOSAN DEPOSITS & ADVANCES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2096/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

80G, Section 88 and various other section which were relevant for the purpose of interpretation of the word “sum” and cash credit. Same has been reiterated and underlined by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amonbolu Rajaiyah in 102 ITR 423; The Allahabad High Court in the case of Saru Smelting and Refining

M/S. ACCESS GLOBAL LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 13/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S. M Surana, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 144(1)Section 68

5 3 (Delhi) ; (i v) Olwin Tiles India (P) L td . v . Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2016) 382 ITR 291 (Gujarat) ; ( v) B . R . Petrochem Pvt. Ltd . v . The Income Tax Officer, (Order dated 24.4.2017 in T. C (A ) No. 1498 of 2007; and ( vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v . Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, reported

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharyya, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 80G

section 80G(5) on or after 1.10.2009 would be a one time approval which would be valid till it is withdrawn.” 3.3. On the second issue relating to payment of commission to the Managing/Whole time Directors namely Shri H. P. Budhia and Shri Sanjay Budhia whereon tax deduction at source was not done as noted

ITO, WARD-46(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANUPAM NANDI, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 774/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.774/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-46(1) -Vs.- Shri Anupam Nandi Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit,Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar

For Appellant: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 28

80G of the Act for donations given in kind, the principle laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reiterated supra would be binding and analogy drawn thereon could be applied to provisions of section 68 of the Act also. It is not in dispute that there was no physical receipt of any money

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 601/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 40A(7)(b)

80G in accordance with law. The same is accordingly upheld and ground no.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 2. C.O. 32/Kol/2011 11. The cross objection filed by the assessee in C.O. 32/Kol/2011 was not pressed at the time of hearing. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. 12. ITA No.746/Kol/2011 is the appeal by the Revenue

ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ANAND ENTERPRISES LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1614/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd. [Pan: Aacca 1175 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 56/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2017 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 1175 F] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Ld. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 2Section 68

80G of the Act. We also find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company 5 ITA No.1614/Kol/2016 & C.O. No.56/Kol/2016 M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 (Co.) vs. CIT reported in 206 ITR 718 (Cal) also supports the case of the assessee herein, wherein it was held as under: “It is finally emphasised

ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KANER INVESTMENTS LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2095/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2095/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kr. Singh, CITFor Respondent: S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

5. Learned Departmental Representative did not have much to say but he nevertheless relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd (supra), on identical facts, vide order

M/S. ABA EARTHLINE COMMUNICATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Aba Earthline Communications Ltd...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant Rajesh Mohan & Associates Unit No. 18 5Th Floor Bagati House 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan : Aabck 4264 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata.……......……….………………..………….…...........Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

5. The facts in this case are not in dispute and the issue in question is a legal issue. Hence we dispose off the appeal on merits. We find that the assessee has filed 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. ABA Earthline Communications Ltd before the Assessing Officer, details of share capital raised during the Financial Year 2012-13 along

I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S TRILOKPATI EXIM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.477/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CITFor Respondent: ShriVinod Kr. Jain, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 68

5. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal inthe case of ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. in ITA No. 1614/Kol/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13. In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “4. We have

ITO, WD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VISHWADHAM TRADERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 I.T.O. Ward 5(4), Kolkata Vs M/S. Vishwadham Traders P.Ltd Pan:Aascv 8983D (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Department)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

5(4), Kolkata Vs M/s. Vishwadham Traders P.Ltd PAN:AASCV 8983D (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Department) Appellant by : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Respondent by : Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 18-12-2018 Date of Pronouncement:23-01 -2019 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

section 12AA and 80G of the Act. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, and delete all or any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts as observed by the Ld. CIT(E) are that the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 06.09.2019 determining total income

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2034/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2458/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2456/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2457/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining