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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 801Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai131Delhi91Ahmedabad67Hyderabad60Pune20Bangalore17Chennai15Jaipur13Kolkata13Cuttack10Surat8Rajkot7Chandigarh6Nagpur5Jodhpur4Lucknow4Raipur4Visakhapatnam3Indore2Amritsar2

Key Topics

Section 1549Section 80I6Section 564Exemption4Addition to Income4Section 80P3Section 801A2

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 568/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 569/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 567/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 566/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which\nrelied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar\nsituation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file\na return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section\n142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

M/S SMS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 566/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Marathe
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

801A of the Act. The delay in filling the return is not willful and the assessee has not been benefited by filling the return late. M/s. SMS Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.566/Nag./2016 (3) That any other grounds may be raised during the course of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company engaged