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.

213 results for “section 68”+ Section 10A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi265Mumbai213Bangalore200Pune59Chennai45Kolkata40Ahmedabad35Hyderabad33Jaipur33Calcutta16Surat16Indore13Lucknow11Visakhapatnam10Karnataka10Telangana8Guwahati7Rajkot7Chandigarh7SC4Patna3Raipur2Rajasthan2Varanasi2Dehradun1Orissa1Cochin1Allahabad1Cuttack1Panaji1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)105Section 10A60Section 14A60Addition to Income53Disallowance49Deduction39Section 80I30Section 69C27Section 14723Transfer Pricing

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

7,95,96,83,862 under Section 68 of the Act. 2.30 It is evident from a bare reading of Section 68 that the section seeks to tax sums found credited in the books of accounts of an assessee which satisfy the following conditions: - Where the assessee does not offer any explanation regarding the nature and source

Showing 1–20 of 213 · Page 1 of 11

...
23
Section 14822
Section 15119

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

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

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

7. We do not find that the Tribunal has either taken the revenue by surprise or in fact treated the revenue unfairly, leave alone unjustly. It has not allowed the revenue’s representative to travel beyond the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Assessing Officer so as to make out some different case. That was fully justified

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

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 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 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. 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

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

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)

7. Before us, though, the assessee has challenged selection / 8. This company, though, was selected by the assessee as a comparable in the transfer pricing study report by using multiple year data, however, before the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee objected to selection of the company due to functional difference and exceptional year of performance. However, rejecting the objections

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

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), 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 4554/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VA;DE; ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4) MUMBAI (EARLIER AO DCITM CIRCLE 11(5) BANGALORE, 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 4555/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

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4) MUMBAI(EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGALORE ), 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 4552/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

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 4683/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI (EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGLORE ., 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 4551/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

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 4715/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4, MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

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 4767/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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