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.

8,118 results for “section 68”+ Section 10(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi9,309Mumbai8,118Bangalore2,365Kolkata2,335Ahmedabad1,822Chennai1,821Jaipur1,422Hyderabad1,309Pune1,159Surat823Chandigarh816Karnataka774Indore750Cochin511Raipur436Rajkot423Visakhapatnam370Nagpur252Amritsar245Lucknow228Cuttack212Agra205Guwahati194Telangana151Ranchi129Jodhpur124SC110Calcutta109Jabalpur106Allahabad99Patna95Panaji92Dehradun76Varanasi36Rajasthan18Kerala13Orissa11Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Addition to Income78Section 6874Section 14835Disallowance30Section 14725Section 271(1)(c)25Section 26317Deduction17Section 10(38)

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 8,118 · Page 1 of 406

...
15
Unexplained Cash Credit15
Section 4013
ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4616/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized stock exchange after payment

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized stock exchange after payment

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009
For Appellant: \nShri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

10]\".\nIt was pleaded that the aforesaid provisions cannot be made\napplicable for the year under appeal. Accordingly, it was argued that\nthe issuance of shares of premium cannot be brought to tax under\nany section of the Income Tax Act up to assessment year 2012-13.\nWe find that the reliance placed

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

68,97,076\n8,23,05,575\n37,84,72,668\n47,76,75,319\nExempt u/s\n10(35)\n10(34)\n10(23FB)\n4. The case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny\nthrough CASS and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting\nthe returned income

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3409/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 755/MUM/2012[B]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6523/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4988/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6537/MUM/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2943/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4987/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 9

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263o

68 to 69C would be applicable in addition to the computation of income under these sections. We, therefore, reject the argument of learned Departmental Representative that addition under section 69 for excess 15 Oberoi Foundation investment has to be independently carried out notwithstanding exemption of income under sections 11 to 13. 21. Now, we come

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

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

ITA 193/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chhajed &For Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

section 145(3) of the Act, rejected books of accounts of the , rejected books of accounts of the assessee and applied gross assessee and applied gross profit at the rate of 22.19% ( profit at the rate of 22.19% (the rate which was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act of INR 7,959,683,862 be deleted. Ground No. 3 - Re-raising of demand which was raised in the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 2 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO25(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3762/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10

INCOME TAX OFFICER-34(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, VILLE PARLE EAST MUMBAI

ITA 4320/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10