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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 85clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,034Mumbai2,328Bangalore820Ahmedabad617Karnataka592Chennai567Kolkata473Jaipur455Hyderabad382Indore292Chandigarh287Pune245Surat157Cochin125Visakhapatnam114Rajkot105Agra95Raipur88Cuttack84Telangana81Guwahati65Lucknow63Calcutta59Nagpur55Amritsar46Ranchi45Allahabad42Jodhpur40Patna29SC29Dehradun22Jabalpur11Rajasthan8Orissa6Panaji2Varanasi2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 14A5Section 143(3)2Section 115J2Section 1442Disallowance2Addition to Income2

SADASHIV B DALAWAI,RAIBAG vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 307/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68
Section 80G

85,91,300/- The case of the assessee selected for scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings the assessee failed to respond various notices issued to him and also failed to produce books & documents when summoned. In the absence of evidence and explanation regarding nature & source of outstanding balance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 69/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

85,201/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the ld. AO noted that AO did not record his non-satisfaction on the claim made by the assessee having regard to the accounts of the assessee and also that