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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai85Delhi77Bangalore47Jaipur24Ahmedabad24Kolkata21Lucknow18Chennai18Chandigarh13Indore9Hyderabad7Pune6Cuttack5Rajkot5Surat3Patna2Amritsar2Panaji1Raipur1Nagpur1Ranchi1SC1Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 80G28Section 6827Section 12A16Section 143(3)15Section 14A15Addition to Income12Deduction11Section 80I10Section 92C8Section 80

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(2)(a), the donation must be a sum of money paid by the assessee.” 12. In view of the above decision we are of the considered view that the phrase ‘any sum’ employed in Section 68,cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. The Ld. AR’s reliance on the findings

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)

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
Disallowance7
Transfer Pricing7
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 - 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]

Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 80G

vi) were held to be applicable by the Tribunal but no concrete or cogent reasons were given to justify the applicability of section 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year. Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal in- the said case is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta

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

vi) and the money receipts. For these three Trusts, the certificates stated their validity which expired prior to the relevant year under consideration. To this effect, ld. Counsel referred to the Circular No.7/2010 dated 27.10.2010 issued by CBDT giving clarification regarding period of validity and approval issued u/s. 10(23C) and section 80G(5

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

vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the respondent are distinguishable, in that the cash credits towards share capit

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

vi) Virtual Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. The assessee company did not pay any cash consideration for making these investments in shares and instead issued shares from its company to the aforesaid shareholders in 2 3 ITA No.1614/Kol/2016 & C.O. No.56/Kol/2016 M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 lieu of purchase consideration for investment in shares. In other words, the shares were issued

M/S. MITRA PARISHAD,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/KOL/2016[-------]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2017

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)(vi)

80G(5)(vi) of the Act, which is placed at page 3 and 4 of the paper book. A perusal of pages 32 to 40 of the paper book, wherein the assessee has placed its activities and the main objects of the society, which is established for philanthropic activities for encouraging education by helping deserving students by giving scholarship

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

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 of Rs. Nil. The assessee

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

ITA 778/KOL/2013[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2020AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

68,88,500 Rs.27,75,400 5. According to Ld. AR, these donations received by the assessee society was exclusively utilised for the purpose of expansion of the assessee’s charitable object as evident from audited accounts of FY 2011-12 and drew our attention to Schedule “Fixed Assets” and contended that it is evident from the same that

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

ITA 779/KOL/2013[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2020AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

68,88,500 Rs.27,75,400 5. According to Ld. AR, these donations received by the assessee society was exclusively utilised for the purpose of expansion of the assessee’s charitable object as evident from audited accounts of FY 2011-12 and drew our attention to Schedule “Fixed Assets” and contended that it is evident from the same that

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1960/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92C

68 (Hyderabad - Trib.)[25-08-2022] 08. Similar in the case of Sasken Technologies Ltd., the assessee submitted that the same should not be considered as comparable for the following reasons: “Functionally not comparable - Sasken is engaged in providing diversified services such as product engineering and digital transformation providing concept-to-market, chip- to-cognition R&D services. Engaged

D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML INFRA LTD (ERSTWHILE M/S SUBHAS PROJECTS& MARKETING LTD), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1291/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 80Section 80l

68 shows an investment of Rs. 4,41,60,431/- on the said project. C. Risks: (i) The assessee was to finish the work specified in the contract within time failing which the assessee would be liable to compensate the Employer. (page 6) (ii) As already discussed above, the security deposit made by the assessee was to be released

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

80G and Rs. 10,00,20,000/- u/s 80M as per Income Tax Return by the AO. 13. For that without prejudice to any other ground taken, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case to not have dealt with invocation of Section 234A, 234B and Section 234C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2507/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69CSection 80G

80G of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and (vi)Addition on account of undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed