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(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi649Mumbai590Chennai245Kolkata178Bangalore177Ahmedabad160Jaipur120Pune118Hyderabad103Chandigarh54Raipur50Indore50Surat49Visakhapatnam42Rajkot39Cuttack31Cochin29Nagpur22Agra21Allahabad20Amritsar18Lucknow16Patna12Guwahati10Karnataka8Jodhpur7Dehradun6Ranchi6Varanasi5Calcutta2SC2Panaji1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

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

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.66,20,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 6. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. It was explained that the reopening

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

23
Deduction17
Penalty15

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

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

68,600/- paid in cash for the purchase of material was required to be disallowed u/s 40A(A)(3) of the IT Act. However, the same was not done by the AO. As the AO has failed to disallow the above amount in view of the provisions of section

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

40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On this issue, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 has not made any addition on this issue and hence it stands deleted which is evident from the assessment order. Since the order of the Assessing Officer has become infructuous in view

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

3. The first issue raised in the present appeal is against the addition of ₹ 12 lakhs made under section 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

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

3)(1), Mumbai [2020] 121 taxmann.com 86 (Bom. HC) (Page no.5 to 8 of the Legal PB) (Please refer Para 13 on Page No.7 of the Legal PB) o Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. M. Dinshaw And Co. (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 170 (Bom. HC) (Page no. 15 to 19 of the Legal PB) (Please refer Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AISHWARYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2036/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2036/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 194Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 40A(3), 40(a)(ia), 68, 36(1)(iii) etc. over and above the GP rate above is also

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)

68,06,960/- and income of Rs.42,37,13,080/- u/s. 115JB. The appellant/assessee has claimed an amount of expenditure of Rs.3,04,14,743/- on account of Administrative Service Charges paid to TACO (Tata Autocomp systems Ltd.) a related company covered u/s. 40A(2)(b). The assessee has claiming the expenditure on basis of an administrative service agreement dated

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)

68,06,960/- and income of Rs.42,37,13,080/- u/s. 115JB. The appellant/assessee has claimed an amount of expenditure of Rs.3,04,14,743/- on account of Administrative Service Charges paid to TACO (Tata Autocomp systems Ltd.) a related company covered u/s. 40A(2)(b). The assessee has claiming the expenditure on basis of an administrative service agreement dated

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)

68,06,960/- and income of Rs.42,37,13,080/- u/s. 115JB. The appellant/assessee has claimed an amount of expenditure of Rs.3,04,14,743/- on account of Administrative Service Charges paid to TACO (Tata Autocomp systems Ltd.) a related company covered u/s. 40A(2)(b). The assessee has claiming the expenditure on basis of an administrative service agreement dated

JAIN ASHAPURI SHINDE ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1964/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI ESTATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1100/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI SHINDE ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1965/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI ESTATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1099/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN PROMOTER AND BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), , PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1973/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI ESTATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1969/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

VASTU ESTATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1098/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1970/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), , PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1976/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40(3)

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that