Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 70clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,499 Mumbai2,776 Bangalore1,000 Chennai795 Kolkata711 Ahmedabad686 Karnataka645 Jaipur638 Hyderabad572 Indore352 Chandigarh352 Surat349 Pune314 Cochin256 Raipur206 Visakhapatnam126 Rajkot120 Telangana98 Agra95 Cuttack93 Lucknow77 Calcutta68 Nagpur67 Ranchi65 Jabalpur62 Amritsar59 SC53 Allahabad45 Guwahati43 Patna42 Jodhpur32 Varanasi18 Dehradun17 Rajasthan11 Orissa7 Panaji6 Kerala3 Andhra Pradesh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6 Section 250(6)4 Section 2(19)4 Deduction4 Disallowance4 Addition to Income3 Section 14A2 Section 41(1)2 Section 133A2 Section 80P

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

2

Section 80P(2)(a)2

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 RIYAZULHAQ F PATHAN,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

The appeal is ALLOWED

ITA 21/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 21/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Riyazulhaq F Pathan, Near Central Excise Quarter, Nipani Tq. Chikodi, Belagavi -591237 Pan:Ahdpp8150A . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short] Dt. 30/10/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Which In Turn Ascended Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 28/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani [‘Ao’ In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

70,475/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 155BBE and excess stock of ₹68,35,590/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Challenging the application of provisions of section

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 118/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

70,44,710/- considering the submissions of the appellant that these parties are contractors with whom the assessee entered into a service cum purchase contract entitling the contractors to operate as well as a right to own the contract mining machineries, equipments by the assessee to contracted price in instalments. The copies of the contract with each of the parties

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 135/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

70,44,710/- considering the submissions of the appellant that these parties are contractors with whom the assessee entered into a service cum purchase contract entitling the contractors to operate as well as a right to own the contract mining machineries, equipments by the assessee to contracted price in instalments. The copies of the contract with each of the parties

EMGEE HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. JCIT(A), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 273/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Emgee Housing Private Vs Acit-Circle 1(1), Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, . 608, City Center Patto Plaza, Edc Complex, Panjim-403001, Patto Plaza, Goa. Panjim-403001, Goa. Pan .No.Aabce6688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By None(Letter 10-03-25) Revenue By Ms.Nazeera Mohamad.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/ Jcit(A) Kanpur Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Found That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Was Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

68,762/- Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the details and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details and was asked