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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 80Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune139Cochin138Bangalore138Mumbai105Panaji78Delhi62Chennai43Visakhapatnam33Kolkata33Ahmedabad31Hyderabad29Jaipur28Rajkot20Chandigarh13Nagpur11Surat10Karnataka9Lucknow7Jodhpur4Kerala4Amritsar3Jabalpur3Indore3Raipur2Cuttack2Agra1SC1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)18Section 80P17Section 80P(2)(d)12Deduction7Addition to Income7Disallowance5Section 143(1)4Section 80P(2)(c)4Section 36(1)(viii)4Section 56

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

68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being not satisfied with

4
Exemption4
Section 143(2)2

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

68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being not satisfied with

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 211/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction under section 80P

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction under section 80P

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

Section 80P for reason of it being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench 9 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68

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

Section 80P for reason of it being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench 9 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68

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

Section 80P for reason of it being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench 9 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68

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

Section 80P for reason of\nit being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench\ndecision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT\n[2016] 68

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE , NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 160/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri P.M. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

68,72,348/- on account of interest received on investments being non banking income not eligible for deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs to be deleted. 4) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case entire income of the assessee

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT , YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 159/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.M. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

68,72,348/- on account of interest received on investments being non banking income not eligible for deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs to be deleted. 4) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case entire income of the assessee

THE SOMALWAR ACADEMY EDUCATION SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY MAR.,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAR 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 17/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

80P of the Act, which was disallowed by the CPC vide intimation/order dated 04/07/2019 u/sec. 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessee challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order confirmed the aforesaid addition/disallowance by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee mainly