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.

118 results for “section 68”+ Section 40A(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi649Mumbai588Chennai245Bangalore177Kolkata176Ahmedabad159Jaipur120Pune118Hyderabad103Chandigarh54Raipur50Indore50Surat49Visakhapatnam42Rajkot39Cuttack31Cochin29Nagpur22Agra21Allahabad20Amritsar18Lucknow16Patna12Guwahati10Karnataka8Jodhpur7Dehradun6Ranchi6Varanasi5Calcutta2SC2Panaji1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)65Addition to Income55Disallowance48Section 40A(3)32Section 4030Section 12A30Section 271(1)(c)29Section 26327Section 6825Section 10A

M/S. MUNOTH TRANSPORT CO.,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 990/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.990/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Munoth Transport Co., Darshan Apartment, V.K. High School Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Raigad – 410206 …. Pan: Aacfm1055D Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 68

68 of the Act. The second issue raised in the present appeal is against disallowance of rent of ₹ 2,40,000/- and guarantee commission of ₹ 5,46,000/- under section 40A

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

23
Deduction17
Penalty15

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) - [(2021) 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur - Trib.)] (iii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iv) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.)] II. Proposition 2 : Where an application

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 512/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1506/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1507/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 870/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 69

2. Dhanush General Stores vs CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (CG) 3. Fakir Mohd Haji Hasan vs CIT, 249 ITR 290 (Guj) In view of the law laid down in these cases, the amount of excess stock found during the survey viz. Rs. 30,01,449/- is to be added back in the assessee’s regular income

SANJAY VASANTRAO WANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2491/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2491/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 40A(3)Section 44A

68,670/-. Assessee did not maintain books of account exclusively for the Real Estate business. He however maintained books of account for the commission and 2 Sanjay Vasantrao Wani brokerage income. There is no dispute about the taxation of commission income. However, the dispute is about the income from Real Estate business. Considering the facts that the assessee

DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

ITA 1817/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The land was purchased from Smt. Nenshi L. Shah, Shri Lalji K. Shah, Shri Shantilal Shah, who are the vendors and are residing in Mumbai. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Shri Manilal M. Gada on 02.03.2016 to submit copy of bank account and other details from

TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

ITA 531/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

2) of new section 40A, expenditure incurred in a business or profession for which payment has been or is to be made to the taxpayer's relatives or associate concerns is liable to be disallowed in computing the profits of the business or profession to the extent the expenditure is considered to be excessive or unreasonable. The reasonableness

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1640/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

68 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance of part of interest u/s.36 (1)(iii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1434/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

68 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance of part of interest u/s.36 (1)(iii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming

VITHAL RAO SHINDE SSK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1160/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1541/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

SHRI VITHAL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1270/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

SHRI CHH SAHU SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1284/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

KUMBHI KASARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2220/PUN/2012[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1989-90

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

DY.CIT, CIR.-3(1), DHULE, DHULE vs. SHIRPUR SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,, DAHIWAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 550/PUN/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

SHRI CHH SAHU SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1285/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

SAHAKAR MAHARSHI SHANKARRAO MOHITE PATIL SSK,SOLAPUR vs. DY. CIT CIR-I SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 184/PUN/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same

ACIT, SANGLI vs. RAJARAMBAPU PATIL SSK LTD, SANGLI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1858/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 21. As far as the case of assessee, which are governed by the said Control Order, 1966 are concerned, the same