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.

212 results for “section 68”+ Section 10A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi262Mumbai212Bangalore200Pune59Chennai47Kolkata40Ahmedabad37Jaipur34Hyderabad33Calcutta16Surat16Indore13Lucknow12Visakhapatnam10Karnataka10Guwahati8Telangana8Rajkot7Chandigarh7SC4Patna3Raipur2Rajasthan2Varanasi2Dehradun1Orissa1Cochin1Allahabad1Cuttack1Panaji1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)108Section 10A71Section 14A56Addition to Income53Disallowance47Deduction39Section 80I30Section 69C25Section 14724Section 148

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

Section 68 of the Act in case of investee is totally against the settled principle of law and hence the order passed is bad in law. 2.11 It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assesee that during the course of hearing before the AO, following documents were filed. For identity and genuineness  Financial Statements (attached

Showing 1–20 of 212 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Transfer Pricing23
Section 4019

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 06/01/2025
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80J

68,378/- or is to be restricted to the e restricted to the business income of Rs 6,22,44,207/ business income of Rs 6,22,44,207/- will be relevant if the will be relevant if the appellate authority in the appeal filed against the 143(3) order appellate authority in the appeal filed against the 143(3

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 7099/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri M P Lohia/For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 144C(1)

68% of the revenue of India Middle East & Asia Pacific IT Services & Products” comprises of sale of products (Page 880, 884 of the supplementary paperbook) Segmental Separate segmental Separate Not Information information not segmental Applicable available in the information not public domain. available in the public domain. However, the TPO obtained the same under section

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is me Tax Act, 1961 is brought on the statute to ensure that payments exceeding the brought on the statute to ensure that payments exceeding the brought on the statute to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified arc made by a c m specified arc made by a crossed cheque drawn

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is me Tax Act, 1961 is brought on the statute to ensure that payments exceeding the brought on the statute to ensure that payments exceeding the brought on the statute to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified arc made by a c m specified arc made by a crossed cheque drawn

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

68. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Though, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction claimed of ` 4,05,40,683 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, however, the DRP while agreeing to the view of the Assessing Officer has also held that the deduction claimed being in the nature of unascertained liability

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 828/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald
Section 10ASection 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

10A of the Act is not due to any inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee but on a purely presumptive basis. That being the case, in our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to be visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, in the course

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

10A it is more than clear that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee. The benefit of deduction is given by the Act to the individual undertaking and resultantly flows to the assessee. This

WNS GLOBAL; SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 14 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

10A it is more than clear that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee. The benefit of deduction is given by the Act to the individual undertaking and resultantly flows to the assessee. This

PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 845/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of civil structural, designing and detailing services. During the relevant assessment years, i.e., for assessment years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, it carried business operation from its four

PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7281/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of civil structural, designing and detailing services. During the relevant assessment years, i.e., for assessment years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, it carried business operation from its four

PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7250/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of civil structural, designing and detailing services. During the relevant assessment years, i.e., for assessment years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, it carried business operation from its four

PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIR RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2211/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of civil structural, designing and detailing services. During the relevant assessment years, i.e., for assessment years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, it carried business operation from its four

PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIR RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2212/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of civil structural, designing and detailing services. During the relevant assessment years, i.e., for assessment years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, it carried business operation from its four

PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of civil structural, designing and detailing services. During the relevant assessment years, i.e., for assessment years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, it carried business operation from its four

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalaa/w Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

3. Further, on the instructions of the assessee he submitted that grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are not to be pressed. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, all these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Thus, the surviving grounds which need

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

68. The facts of the M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. case in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) referred to in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) 331 ITR 236 are distinguishable as much as the reopening was on account of the items of club fees, gifts and presents and provisions leave encashments whereas

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

68. The facts of the M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. case in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) referred to in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) 331 ITR 236 are distinguishable as much as the reopening was on account of the items of club fees, gifts and presents and provisions leave encashments whereas

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S WELLKNOWN POLYSTERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

68. The facts of the M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. case in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) referred to in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) 331 ITR 236 are distinguishable as much as the reopening was on account of the items of club fees, gifts and presents and provisions leave encashments whereas

DCIT CC -5 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4684/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

68,682/- to tax as an inadmissible expenditure." 34. It is the undisputed fact that assessee was not able to It is a lower authorities any contract it had entered with produce before the L & T Ltd, its holding company for reimbursement of employee cost. However, it is also not disputed that the employees were deputed to the assessee