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.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 173(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi747Mumbai472Karnataka471Bangalore138Chennai126Jaipur103Kolkata91Ahmedabad90Indore68Surat67Chandigarh54Raipur52Hyderabad51Ranchi32Pune31Lucknow29Patna24Allahabad24Visakhapatnam20Amritsar19Calcutta19SC18Telangana16Rajkot15Agra14Cochin12Guwahati8Dehradun7Rajasthan6Jodhpur5Varanasi4Nagpur4Cuttack3Panaji2Jabalpur2Uttarakhand2Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 686Section 143(3)5Section 36(1)(viii)4Section 10(38)2Section 222Section 80P2Section 36(1)2Addition to Income2Deduction

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-1) DATED 20-9-2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice

2
Disallowance2

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-1) DATED 20-9-2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

68 of I.T. Act 1961 by A.O. and thereby dismissing the ground of appeal of assessee. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting personal hearing as prayed in written submission at pra 8 uploaded on 21/10/2023. Order passed by CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice and is not in accordance with

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

173 of the Paper Book. The learned assessing officer has relied on the judgments which were not related to the fact of case of the assessee and addition made U/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit as per plain reading of aforesaid provision of section 68 is not at all applicable in the case of the assessee, when the assessee