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.

67 results for “section 68”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi557Mumbai517Bangalore167Chennai163Ahmedabad141Kolkata128Jaipur108Hyderabad96Pune67Raipur48Indore39Chandigarh35Visakhapatnam35Rajkot35Surat35Cuttack23Cochin20Agra19Allahabad19Nagpur19Lucknow15Amritsar11Patna11Guwahati10Karnataka6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Dehradun2Ranchi2Calcutta2SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income46Section 12A39Disallowance36Section 6829Section 26328Section 1125Section 40A(3)24Section 10(20)24Section 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 and also disallowance of expenses made by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 7. The assessee

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

23
TDS15
Deduction13

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

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

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2263/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. AR narrated relevant facts. Referring to the discussion in Para 6 of the assessment order, Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee made payment of Rs.1,68

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1262/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. AR narrated relevant facts. Referring to the discussion in Para 6 of the assessment order, Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee made payment of Rs.1,68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2283/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, Ld. AR narrated relevant facts. Referring to the discussion in Para 6 of the assessment order, Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee made payment of Rs.1,68

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act were applicable. The CIT(A) noted that in earlier year, sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid as salary to the lady and he accordingly, considered salary of Rs.4,60,000/- as reasonable and the balance sum of Rs.5 lakhs was disallowed. 16. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the same

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act were applicable. The CIT(A) noted that in earlier year, sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid as salary to the lady and he accordingly, considered salary of Rs.4,60,000/- as reasonable and the balance sum of Rs.5 lakhs was disallowed. 16. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the same

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

b. Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant

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

68 of the Act, 1961 would be attracted. That apart, we find that the finding recorded by the ITAT as aforequoted is a finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Therefore, no interference can be made. The appeal lacks merit and, therefore, 13 Tara Constructions deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The substantial question

M/S. AGH BATWAWALA,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 368/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 368/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Ganoo &
Section 143(2)Section 40Section 40ASection 68

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. All these three ladies are Graduate and are helping the assessee in conducting business. The ld. AR contended that assessee carries its business from various locations. The assessee has a shop near Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and three godowns at Market Yard, Kolhapur. The assessee has shortage of staff. The assessee is receiving