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.

61 results for “section 68”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi399Mumbai328Bangalore285Kolkata118Ahmedabad96Hyderabad81Pune61Chennai43Jaipur39Chandigarh31Lucknow22Indore19Rajkot11Cuttack11Surat11Nagpur6Varanasi6Agra4Cochin4Karnataka3Panaji3Patna3Visakhapatnam3Allahabad2Guwahati2Raipur2Calcutta2Amritsar2Jabalpur2Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)55Section 10A54Addition to Income47Section 12A39Transfer Pricing33Section 80I32Section 1131Section 10B26Section 92C(3)25Section 10(20)

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2633/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 10BSection 10DSection 143(3)

section 10B of the Act has been reduced by ₹ 1,68,16,143/-. 16. Brief facts relating to the issue

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

24
Deduction22
Disallowance21

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2632/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 10BSection 10DSection 143(3)

section 10B of the Act has been reduced by ₹ 1,68,16,143/-. 16. Brief facts relating to the issue

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 357/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 10BSection 10DSection 143(3)

section 10B of the Act has been reduced by ₹ 1,68,16,143/-. 16. Brief facts relating to the issue

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2631/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 10BSection 10DSection 143(3)

section 10B of the Act has been reduced by ₹ 1,68,16,143/-. 16. Brief facts relating to the issue

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 709/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

section 10B, said claim being wrong, would form 'reasons to believe' so as to initiate reassessment (This case is Affirmed in [2014] 50 taxmann.com 319 (Karnataka)) 15. The appellant contends that AO has erred in treating the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV) of Rs.11,33,80,800/- as income of the appellant, which as per appellant was erroneously shown

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act should have been applied in this regard and the decision of the Ld. AO to not draw any adverse inference about the substantive loan of Rs.3,37,65,561/- was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3.5 The assessee filed her detailed reply to the show cause notice issued

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 804/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 8OSection 8Q

10B or Section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim of deduction

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3075/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

68, involving proceeding u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the I.T.ACT, 1961 ; in short "the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. ―1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

10B and made a passing remark that the revised return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) only substituted original return of income u/s 139(1) and cannot be C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 transformed as return u/s 139(3) in order to avail the benefit of carry forward and set-off of any loss under the provisions of section

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

10B and made a passing remark that the revised return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) only substituted original return of income u/s 139(1) and cannot be C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 transformed as return u/s 139(3) in order to avail the benefit of carry forward and set-off of any loss under the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 619/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 251(2)

10B(7) so as to reduce the eligible profits on the basis of the arm's length price computed 10 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 by the Transfer Pricing Officer without showing how he determined that the assessee had shown more than "ordinary profits". As rightly argued by learned senior counsel the arm's length price is determined

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 583/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 251(2)

10B(7) so as to reduce the eligible profits on the basis of the arm's length price computed 10 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 by the Transfer Pricing Officer without showing how he determined that the assessee had shown more than "ordinary profits". As rightly argued by learned senior counsel the arm's length price is determined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2336/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

68,205/- without appreciating the fact the assessee itself in the comparable furnished in its transfer pricing report has shown 'Ordinary profit' to be of 13.84% (as observed by the AO in the assessment order) as against the net profit margin of 26.40% shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

10B as provided in s. 12A(b) r/w r. 17B of the Rules, the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Jaideep Industries’ case (supra) would not apply to the present case.” 11. In view of the above therefore we find no merit in the argument of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for exemption

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

10B as provided in s. 12A(b) r/w r. 17B of the Rules, the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Jaideep Industries’ case (supra) would not apply to the present case.” 11. In view of the above therefore we find no merit in the argument of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

10B as provided in s. 12A(b) r/w r. 17B of the Rules, the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Jaideep Industries’ case (supra) would not apply to the present case.” 11. In view of the above therefore we find no merit in the argument of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

10B as provided in s. 12A(b) r/w r. 17B of the Rules, the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Jaideep Industries’ case (supra) would not apply to the present case.” 11. In view of the above therefore we find no merit in the argument of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for exemption

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

10B as provided in s. 12A(b) r/w r. 17B of the Rules, the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Jaideep Industries’ case (supra) would not apply to the present case.” 11. In view of the above therefore we find no merit in the argument of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

10B as provided in s. 12A(b) r/w r. 17B of the Rules, the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Jaideep Industries’ case (supra) would not apply to the present case.” 11. In view of the above therefore we find no merit in the argument of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for exemption

PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 263Section 40Section 54E

section 54EC of the Act and as such the order passed by the A.O is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 11. The ld. A.R further submits that the ld. Pr. CIT was also not justified in his finding that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as no tax was deducted