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.

55 results for “section 68”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi613Mumbai582Bangalore315Ahmedabad157Jaipur98Hyderabad76Chennai76Kolkata73Pune55Rajkot39Nagpur32Indore30Allahabad29Karnataka29Jodhpur25Raipur23Agra22Chandigarh22Surat22Lucknow19Amritsar12Visakhapatnam10Dehradun10Guwahati7Cuttack6Ranchi4SC3Patna2Cochin1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)67Section 234C56Addition to Income38Section 153A35Section 10A28Section 6827Disallowance27Section 80I24Section 26324Section 143(1)

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)

234C in clear terms impose a mandate to collect interest at the rates stipulated therein. The expression 'shall' used in the said sections cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as "may". This is clear from the fact that prior to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1987, the legislature in the corresponding section pertaining

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

23
Deduction18
Search & Seizure17
09 Sept 2025
AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

68,26,650/- 11 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 It is noted that JAO has also passed the detailed rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) vide order number ITBA/REC/S/154-1/2023- 24/1054089997(1) dated 03.07.2023 and elaborately discussion relevant and applicable case laws, has remarked that Para no. 6.4.3" in the rectification order as under:- 6.4.3 Based on the above

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

68,26,650/- 11 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 It is noted that JAO has also passed the detailed rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) vide order number ITBA/REC/S/154-1/2023- 24/1054089997(1) dated 03.07.2023 and elaborately discussion relevant and applicable case laws, has remarked that Para no. 6.4.3" in the rectification order as under:- 6.4.3 Based on the above

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1277/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1540/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1542/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1274/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1541/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1276/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1278/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1275/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

section 234C of the Act the interest is to be charged on the returned income. We find from the facts of the case that there is no tax due on the returned income and hence, no interest can be levied u/s 234C of the Act in the present case before us. We direct the AO to delete the levy

SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR,(HUF),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the Cross

ITA 260/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2018 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 234BSection 68Section 69

234C is not justified.” Cross Objections by Revenue : “1. On the facts and circumstances relating to addition of Rs.81,00,000/-, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the same u/s.69 instead of section 68

SHRI PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTH,SATARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 757/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pawan ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 281BSection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer duly confirmed by him being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant society filed against the Assessment Order passed

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 13) The assessee denies liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act, 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2800/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of INR 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of INR 1,35,555 and Bonus of INR 5,07,95,670 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reason whatsoever, 9. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1141/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of INR 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of INR 1,35,555 and Bonus of INR 5,07,95,670 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reason whatsoever, 9. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 is not attracted in this case. The addition is wholly unjustified and deserves to be deleted in its entirety. 7. Without prejudice to the legal grounds above, the learned CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper examination of facts and merits of the case. The learned CIT(A) has ignored the genuine reasons, including health

SWATHI KEWAL NEMMANIWAR,KINWAT NANDED vs. ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 637/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

68, and the tax calculated as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B & 234C

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 758/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Shivastava
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

section 234C ought to be levied on the returned income and not on assessed income. 4. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) disallowing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.62,60,65,990/-. The factual background of the disallowance is as under: During the previous year relevant to the assessment

VISHAL ASHOK CHUGERA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 438/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 37Section 57Section 68

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant has failed to substantiate the loans raised from these loan creditors. 33. As regards to the loan raised from Shri Ramesh Chhabria, it is seen that Shri Ramesh Chhabria had disclosed an income of Rs.6,21,120/- in his ITR for AY 2020-21. On the other