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.

1 result for “section 68”+ Section 234B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,171Mumbai851Bangalore563Ahmedabad195Kolkata129Jaipur127Hyderabad118Chennai101Pune73Indore46Chandigarh43Nagpur43Allahabad34Surat34Agra31Karnataka31Rajkot29Ranchi25Lucknow20Jodhpur19Amritsar15Cochin14Visakhapatnam14Dehradun13Cuttack7Guwahati7Raipur6SC5Patna3Jabalpur2Telangana2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 2632Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 37(1)2

ZUARI MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD.,GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

ITA 85/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Zuari Management Services Ltd. (Erstwhile Zuari Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., Formerly Zuari Sez Ltd.) Jai Kisaan Nagar, Zuari Nagar, Goa. Pan: Aaacz2903Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Salil Kapoor [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar N [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Salil Kapoor [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar N [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)
Section 37(1)

1) of the Act, without appreciating that the same was incurred in the course of its business and hence, was allowable as expenditure. 4. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the expenditure incurred on account of the auditor fee of Rs 82,725/-, without