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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 145Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai156Cochin60Ahmedabad55Delhi48Chandigarh43Bangalore22Kolkata17Chennai16Agra10Jaipur7Pune7Surat5Karnataka2Rajkot2Calcutta1Visakhapatnam1Raipur1Ranchi1Hyderabad1Indore1Cuttack1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(viii)13Section 145A11Section 407Section 287Addition to Income7Section 694Section 1483Section 233Section 573Natural Justice

VANAZ ENGINEERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1959/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vanaz Engineers Limited, 85/1, Paud Road, Pune-411 038. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacv6873B बनाम / V/S. Addl. Cit, Range- 7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Vanaz Engineers Limited (‘The Appellant’), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 5 ['Cit(A)’], Pune (Received By The Appellant On 20Th June, 2017) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Has:

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 145ASection 194C
2
Deduction2
Section 201
Section 250
Section 40

68,127/- which was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that disallowance was not required to be made as all these payments were below Rs. 20,000/- which is less than erstwhile threshold limit specified under section 194C of the Act; Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2550/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT
Section 145ASection 69

Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form 35 (Column 12) during the entire appellate proceedings spanning nearly three years and then invoking this very defect as grounds

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2548/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT
Section 145ASection 69

Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form 35 (Column 12) during the entire appellate proceedings spanning nearly three years and then invoking this very defect as grounds

JYOTI JAYANTRAO INDURKAR,,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Jogesh Kamath
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 234BSection 28Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

68,423/- and the same is tabulated at page 4 of the assessment order. However, in the computation of income, the assessee had not offered the interest of Rs.70,37,907/- for taxation under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish details of compensation and interest received. The assessee furnished the order

HARISHCHANDRA NIVRUTI BARURE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1725/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1724/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 145ASection 148Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

145A(b) are brought into statute w.e.f. 01-04-2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. AO also analysed the provisions of section 23(1A), 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and held that these amounts are chargeable to income tax. AO also analysed the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam

SANJAY NIVRUTI BARURE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1726/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1724/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 145ASection 148Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

145A(b) are brought into statute w.e.f. 01-04-2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. AO also analysed the provisions of section 23(1A), 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and held that these amounts are chargeable to income tax. AO also analysed the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam

RAMCHANDRA NIVRUTI BARURE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1724/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1724/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 145ASection 148Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

145A(b) are brought into statute w.e.f. 01-04-2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. AO also analysed the provisions of section 23(1A), 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and held that these amounts are chargeable to income tax. AO also analysed the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam