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.

3,611 results for “section 68”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,233Mumbai3,611Bangalore1,241Chennai928Ahmedabad872Kolkata782Jaipur753Karnataka673Hyderabad653Pune443Indore422Chandigarh385Surat286Cochin262Raipur217Visakhapatnam159Rajkot147Nagpur130Agra121Lucknow115Cuttack108Telangana103Calcutta81Jabalpur71Guwahati69Amritsar69Allahabad60SC59Ranchi53Jodhpur46Dehradun39Patna35Varanasi22Rajasthan11Orissa9Kerala8Uttarakhand3Gauhati2Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Addition to Income61Section 6847Disallowance42Section 14A34Deduction26Section 153A25Capital Gains21Section 25020Section 10(38)

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

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 44. Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal in case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10

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

Showing 1–20 of 3,611 · Page 1 of 181

...
20
Section 115J20
Section 271(1)(c)20

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

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 44. Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal in case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. Section 68, read with section 10

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

section 10(38) after 1-10-2004 then the loss from exempt source would be set off against taxable gain, such set off is contrary to law. (iv)In Mridu Hari Dalmia Parivar Trust v. AO [2016] 68

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3392/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263oSection 68

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 29. We are gainfully refer the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai tribunal in case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) whereas held as under. 16 Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai. Section 68, read with section 10

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

10(38) and made addition of LTCG under section 68. The under section 68. The shares had been

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1948/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 133A

section 10(38) is also not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant as acquisition of shares through preferential allotment, bonus shares and split shares is not covered in transactions notified by CBDT in notification dated 05.06.2017. Thus, the addition of Rs. 48,68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 133A

section 10(38) is also not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant as acquisition of shares through preferential allotment, bonus shares and split shares is not covered in transactions notified by CBDT in notification dated 05.06.2017. Thus, the addition of Rs. 48,68

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 103. In case of Ramprasad Agarwal reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein held as under: "Section 68, read with section 10

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

section 68 is prospective\nin nature.\nHon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chain House\nInternational (P) Ltd., order dated 07.08.2018, decision reported in\n98 taxmann.com47 has held at para 52 as under-\n\"Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial\ndecision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

38,68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

38,68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed Expenses

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

.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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

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

38. As, the issue raised by the learned authorized representative under rule 27 of ITA T rules has merely become academic issue, same is also dismissed. 39. In the result ITA number 2943/M/2008 for assessment year 2001 – 02 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 40. ITA number 4987/M/2008 is filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs. ACIT, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ITA 3551/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

68,870/- being provision for insurance claim. The Ld.\nCT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance merely on the\nground that the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of the\nassessee for earlier assessment years has not been accepted by\nthe Department.\n3. The Ld. CT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of claim