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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 100clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,630Delhi2,436Bangalore806Karnataka599Ahmedabad526Jaipur513Chennai501Kolkata420Hyderabad403Indore280Chandigarh261Pune251Surat248Visakhapatnam125Cochin121Rajkot118Raipur97Cuttack89Nagpur79Telangana74Lucknow71Guwahati66Calcutta54SC39Amritsar33Allahabad29Jodhpur24Ranchi23Agra23Jabalpur19Patna18Varanasi12Rajasthan10Panaji8Orissa7Dehradun7Uttarakhand2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)6Section 92C6Section 143(3)4Section 2(19)4Section 1644Deduction4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Natural Justice4Section 80P

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 389/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2
Section 80P(2)(a)2
Section 143(2)2
ITA 388/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

SHRI SAI CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,CHIKODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 265/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 80P deduction claims of Rs.8,68,573/- and Rs.26,70,100/- respectively; for the sole reason that Saouhard

SHRI VEERRANI MALLAMMA URBAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD,BELGAVI vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BELGAVI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 18/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 80P deduction claims of Rs.8,68,573/- and Rs.26,70,100/- respectively; for the sole reason that Saouhard

SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 75/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 246ASection 250

100/-. From the page-125 of member list produced in the course of hearing indisputably submitted by the Ld. AR that no person other than ‘Lotlikar Family’ was admitted to the membership of the society. The individual share of such admitted member of the appellant society is indeterminate & unknown. From the clause 6 of bye-laws placed on record

SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 76/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 246ASection 250

100/-. From the page-125 of member list produced in the course of hearing indisputably submitted by the Ld. AR that no person other than ‘Lotlikar Family’ was admitted to the membership of the society. The individual share of such admitted member of the appellant society is indeterminate & unknown. From the clause 6 of bye-laws placed on record

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa