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.

18 results for “section 68”+ Section 433clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi308Karnataka293Mumbai269Chennai108Ahmedabad83Bangalore66Kolkata39Jaipur36Allahabad31Raipur28Cuttack19Pune18Hyderabad16Indore14Surat14Lucknow12Visakhapatnam10Chandigarh10Amritsar10Dehradun7Telangana6Guwahati5Rajkot4Nagpur4Varanasi4SC3Panaji3Jodhpur2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1Cochin1Patna1Orissa1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 12A48Section 1125Section 10(20)24Section 143(3)22Section 15421Addition to Income11Exemption11Section 271A10Section 167B9Section 153A

SWAMINI MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2533/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 282Section 69A

68 and section 69A cannot be applied simultaneously The addition may kindly be deleted Levy of tax U/s 115BBE 10. The Ld. AO erred in levying tax U/s 115BBE 4 ITA No.2533/PUN/2025 [A] Initiation of penalty 11. The Ld. AO erred in initiation penalty 271(1)(b). 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. Levy of interest

8
TDS7
Deduction5

EDEN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE ,AURANGABAD vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands Allowed

ITA 201/PUN/2021[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.201/Pun/2021 Eden Education & Research The Cit, Exemption, Institute, Vs Pune. Shop No.3, G.No.140, Delux Bazar, Satara, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan : Aaate 7724 P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta - Dr Date Of Hearing 15/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/03/2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune On 30.03.2021. 2) The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Learned Cit, Exemption, Pune; Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Registration U/S 12A Of The Ita, 1961 To Appellant Trust. 2. Appellant Contends That, Appellant Made Detailed Submissions Upon All The Issues Raised, Whereas, The Learned Cit, Exemption, Pune; Declined The Registration U/S 12A Of The Ita, 1961 On Altogether Erroneous & Incorrect Analogies Without Affording Any Further Opportunity To Appellant, To Make A Say In The Matter & As Such, Vitiated Principle Of Natural Justice. 3. The Learned Cit, Exemption, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Following Erroneous & Fallacious Observations: Eden Education & Research Institute (A)

Section 12ASection 131

68,433 24,78,699 12.00% Thus, it is seen that the receipts from the activity are increased almost three fold in just 3 years from the start of the educational activity and the surplus by many folds. The applicant is generating a substantial surplus @ 12% to 15% from the activity. The fees structure include various components other than tuition

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1392/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

section 143(3) 81,31,985/- ” 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition of Rs.68,32,775/- by observing as under :- 4 “2.1 The Income Tax assessment for Ay 2010-11 was completed on 18/12/2012 assessing the above income u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. Assessee held this land

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 791/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Naveen RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 43C

68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT reported in 38 DTR 19 has explained to the Assessing Officer that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. SHARAD ANANDRAO DEORE, DHULE

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

ITA 996/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

68,457 5.44% 8. It was accordingly requested to estimate the profit reasonably at 6% of the turnover. It was submitted that in the following cases the profit rate has been estimated at 5%. Name of decision Ratio laid down (1) CIT vs. Target Construction Co. Profit of road constructions should be Ltd. 231 Taxmann 55 (All. H.C.) estimated

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2817/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

68 SOT 163]. 11. Facts being identical following the above decisions. I hold that the provisions of section 167B have no application to the Assessee and the income of the assessee cannot be taxed at maximum marginal rates. Ground nos. 1.a, 1.c to 1.e are allowed.” 13. I also find the Cochin Bench of Tribunal

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

68 SOT 163]. 11. Facts being identical following the above decisions. I hold that the provisions of section 167B have no application to the Assessee and the income of the assessee cannot be taxed at maximum marginal rates. Ground nos. 1.a, 1.c to 1.e are allowed.” 13. I also find the Cochin Bench of Tribunal

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2560/PUN/2024[AAATN9300L]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

68 SOT 163]. 11. Facts being identical following the above decisions. I hold that the provisions of section 167B have no application to the Assessee and the income of the assessee cannot be taxed at maximum marginal rates. Ground nos. 1.a, 1.c to 1.e are allowed.” 13. I also find the Cochin Bench of Tribunal

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

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

433 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Educational Society vs. JCIT reported in 107 taxmann.com 127. He submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the return of income along with the audit report were filed during the set aside proceedings and the same were available with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, rejecting

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

433 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Educational Society vs. JCIT reported in 107 taxmann.com 127. He submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the return of income along with the audit report were filed during the set aside proceedings and the same were available with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, rejecting

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

433 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Educational Society vs. JCIT reported in 107 taxmann.com 127. He submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the return of income along with the audit report were filed during the set aside proceedings and the same were available with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, rejecting

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

433 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Educational Society vs. JCIT reported in 107 taxmann.com 127. He submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the return of income along with the audit report were filed during the set aside proceedings and the same were available with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, rejecting

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

433 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Educational Society vs. JCIT reported in 107 taxmann.com 127. He submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the return of income along with the audit report were filed during the set aside proceedings and the same were available with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, rejecting

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

433 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Educational Society vs. JCIT reported in 107 taxmann.com 127. He submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the return of income along with the audit report were filed during the set aside proceedings and the same were available with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, rejecting

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

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

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

68,019 Total 1,42,03,78,121 Giriraj Enterprises Date of payment 2020-22 30-03-2021 GSTR-3B Feb-2021 58,28,24,563 20-04-2021 GSTR-3B Mar-2021 1,22,94,546 Total 59,51,19,109 16.2 From the above reconciliation, it is seen that the GST paid on cash sales for the year

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

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

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

68,019 Total 1,42,03,78,121 Giriraj Enterprises Date of payment 2020-22 30-03-2021 GSTR-3B Feb-2021 58,28,24,563 20-04-2021 GSTR-3B Mar-2021 1,22,94,546 Total 59,51,19,109 16.2 From the above reconciliation, it is seen that the GST paid on cash sales for the year

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

433/-. 8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the grounds. So far as the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for self occupied house property is concerned, he dismissed the same by observing as under: “8. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. In the present case, the original return