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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka440Mumbai431Delhi353Chennai115Jaipur78Bangalore62Ahmedabad54Hyderabad40Chandigarh37Kolkata37Calcutta35Raipur20Lucknow19Indore18Surat15Cuttack10Visakhapatnam8Patna8Pune8Agra6Telangana6Cochin5Rajkot5Guwahati5Amritsar4SC4Kerala2Nagpur2Varanasi1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 54F7Section 143(3)6Section 686Section 143(2)5Addition to Income5Section 43C3Section 403Disallowance3Section 143(1)2Section 133A

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1289/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 on the ground that the assessee had proved the nature and source of the share subscription money and had established the identity and creditworthiness of the share-subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. [Para 13] 6.19. Reference is invited to the Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in the case of Arvind Khanna (2015) 93CCH18

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune
2
Survey u/s 133A2
Deduction2
18 Aug 2025
AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

364\n6.7.5\nFrom the values exhibited in the fifth column which reveals the\npercentage of completion as on 31.03.2013, it is affirmed by the appellant that the\nprojects CEREBRUM(B3), Kumar City, Sofronia and Business Court are all\ncompleted entirely and the percentage of completion as stated in the said table is\n100%.\n6.7.6\nObviously, when the projects are cent

PARAS JAVERILAL JAIN,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1487/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

section 14A is not applicable to the facts of the case, as sufficient own funds were available with the appellant for making such investment and A.O has not proved any nexus of the said investment was made out of the borrowed fund. The CIT(A) violating the principles laid down in the decision of Jurisdictional High Court, and confirmed

RADHESHAM TOTARAM NARAYANI,,NANDURBAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1491/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

364-A, Nagarpalika No.1389/3, Hat Darwaja, Nandurbar – 425 412 अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN : AAHPN7393L …. Vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Jalgaon अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Smt. Deepa Khare ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 21 .03.2018 आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश

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)

68,847/- given to HUL. It is submitted that the HUL is the distributor of products of the appellant company and selling discount was 17 given to the HUL towards the sale cost. It is submitted that the HUL was not responsible for the control and conduct of the business of the appellant company and no services towards sales were

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

ITA 2330/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar &
Section 54F

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located

SAI BHARGAVNATH INFRA ,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

ITA 2417/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Asif A. Karmali
Section 143(3)Section 43C

68,378 5,37,466 Shah Kunal Prakash 41,15,864 31,67,500 19,48,364 16,31,614 Baramati Ishwar 41,15,864 35,00,000 6,15,864 2,65,864 Devashi Vardhaman 41,76,858 36,15,460 5,61,398 1,99,852 Uddhavrao Khutale Amar Manohar

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

364 crores. The scheme received another trench of inflow of Rs.427 crores in between 11.12.2014 to 25.12.2014 i.e. in a span of just 11 days. The closing AUM as on 25.12.2014 stood at Rs.1,776.84 crores. The scheme received another inflow of Rs.1517.31 Crores between 10.03.2015 to 25.03.2015 i.e. in a span of just 16 days. In fact, the scheme