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 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi300Mumbai193Bangalore143Ahmedabad72Kolkata36Hyderabad32Jaipur31Surat25Chandigarh22Raipur21Rajkot14Chennai13Indore9Dehradun8Pune7Nagpur4Jodhpur4Cuttack2Karnataka2Guwahati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A10Section 687Section 1276Addition to Income5Section 1474Section 143(3)4Section 1483Section 403Cash Deposit3Section 194J

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

2
Deduction2
Transfer Pricing2

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

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

234D of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. a. The learned ACIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned DRP erred in not giving any directions in respect of the same. b. The learned ACIT / DRP erred in not appreciating that

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

ITA 1295/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 127Section 139Section 153ASection 68

68 does not apply and even though the source of Rs.47,12,511/- was attributable to advance received from Dipesh as above said and the said explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming above

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

ITA 1294/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 127Section 139Section 153ASection 68

68 does not apply and even though the source of Rs.47,12,511/- was attributable to advance received from Dipesh as above said and the said explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming above

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

68 SOT 14 (Pune-Trib.)  Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs ACIT ITA No. 598 of 2013 (Mum)  Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd vs ACIT [2015] 42 ITR (T) 77 (Del)  Yash Jewellery (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2016]157 ITD 340 (Mum - Trib.)  Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2016]160 ITD 465 (Bangalore - Trib.)  Goodyear India Ltd. vs DCIT

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

68 SOT 14 (Pune-Trib.)  Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs ACIT ITA No. 598 of 2013 (Mum)  Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd vs ACIT [2015] 42 ITR (T) 77 (Del)  Yash Jewellery (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2016]157 ITD 340 (Mum - Trib.)  Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2016]160 ITD 465 (Bangalore - Trib.)  Goodyear India Ltd. vs DCIT