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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 115Qclear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad16Delhi6Mumbai6Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 216Section 115Q4Section 14A4Section 2013Section 194J3Section 143(3)2Section 442Section 115O2Addition to Income2Disallowance2Deduction2

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6468/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Ms. Priyanka –(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Radha K. Narang
Section 14ASection 254(1)

68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956,Act.The contentions of the Regional Director are therefore clearly contrary to the prevailing lega1 position.” The above observations of the Hon’ble Court does not leave any doubt that buyback of shares cannot be equated with reduction of capital

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

ITA 3726/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai
12 Feb 2016
AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Smt. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 195Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(d)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956,Act.The contentions of the Regional Director are therefore clearly contrary to the prevailing lega1 position.” The above observations of the Hon’ble Court does not leave any doubt that buyback of shares cannot be equated with reduction of capital

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

ITA 1074/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &
Section 143(3)Section 199Section 44

115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee‘s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year 1998-99 dated 18/12/2006, which has been subsequently followed by the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case for assessment years

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

115Q read with Section 115O of the act determining the deemed distribution of dividend u/s 2 (22) (a) of the act amounting to rupees 24037,37,18,198 being the value of 92,02,66,915 shares at the rate of ₹ 261.20 per share determining the dividend distribution tax payable of ₹ 48,934,440,243 and interest thereon amounting

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

115Q read with Section 115O of the act determining the deemed distribution of dividend u/s 2 (22) (a) of the act amounting to rupees 24037,37,18,198 being the value of 92,02,66,915 shares at the rate of ₹ 261.20 per share determining the dividend distribution tax payable of ₹ 48,934,440,243 and interest thereon amounting

CLSA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8431/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

68,070. The adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. Though, the assessee objected to the adjustment made to brokerage commission, however, learned DRP agreed with the decision of the Transfer Pricing Officer. 16. The leaned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, the issue is squarely covered