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.

14 results for “section 68”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai172Delhi151Jaipur48Hyderabad47Ahmedabad39Indore33Kolkata32Chennai28Nagpur19Raipur18Surat17Bangalore15Pune14Chandigarh11Lucknow10Guwahati9Rajkot9Jodhpur8Visakhapatnam3Karnataka3Patna3Agra3Cochin1Amritsar1Allahabad1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 50C23Section 143(3)15Addition to Income12Disallowance7Section 43C5Search & Seizure5Section 684Capital Gains4Section 36(1)(va)3Section 250

NARENDRA SHANTIKUMAR FIRODIA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 494/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 494/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, 5 Shobha Sadan, Aurangabad Road, Dsp Chowk, Ahmednagar – 414 002 Pan :Aabpf6158K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/03/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Upholding The Order Of Assessment Dt. 28/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

68. 10. In view of the aforesaid factual position and in law, we find that the present transaction of transfer of leasehold right in question does not warrant invoking of section 50C(1

2
Section 1482
Section 482

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , NASHIK vs. SMT. PRIYA K. JAGTIYANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHOR C. JAGTIYANI, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. Smt. Priya K. Jagtiyani L/H Of Late Kishor Chelaram Jagtiyani Office No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shalimar Chowk, Shivaji Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422001 Pan: Adepj7743C

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit HalderFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 68

1,05,65,035/-. The assessee had already offered sum of ₹ 6,68,958/- as short term capital 4 gains and the balance sum of ₹ 98,96,077/- was added in the hands of assessee. 6. Another addition which was made in the hands of assessee was on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68

RIECO INDUSTRIES LIMITEED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1627/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1627/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding A.O.'s action of relying on the Asstt. Valuation Officer's report for the purposes of sec. 50C, when the aforesaid section was not applicable to the instant case in the first place. The learned 2 CIT(A) failed to appreciate the contentions

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 WATERFRONT HOUSING & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1100/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Waterfront Housing & Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Pune. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajyog Creations Apts, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aaacw9020F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 48(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act From The Long Term Capital Gains, In Respect Of The Indexed Cost Of Interest Paid For The Acquisition Of The House Property Sold By The Assessee, Made By The Assessing Officer By Travelling Beyond The Issue For Which This Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Is Without Jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Eared Is Not Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.24,38,826/- U/S 48(Ii) From The Long Term

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 48Section 50C

1. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 12(2), Pune has passed the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 28-11-2017 by wrongly disallowances of interest paid of Rs.45,56,780/-, which has been paid for acquisition of house property and claimed as cost

SHIVAJI VISHNU CHAVAN,PUNE vs. UITO WARD-5(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1143/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shivaji Vishnu Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Gomukh, 92/2, Gangtok, S Ward-5(4), Pune. Narsapur, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaspc1061B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Shivaji Vishnu Chavan In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2011-12, Dated 12.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 274Section 50CSection 68

1 /6th of the total consideration of land amounts to Rs.32,55,000/6= Rs.5,42,500/- by ITA No.1143/PUN/2025 [A] invoking provisions of section 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, assessee’s share of Rs.5,42,000 is treated as his income of the year under the head Income from capital gain and unexplained money u/s. 68

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 227/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 92D

68,40,000/-, calculated at the ad-hoc rate of 12% on the interest free securitydeposits given to related parties in relation to two flats at Walkeshwar, Mumbai by merely following the order of learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 and ignoring the various arguments of the Appellant, including order of learnedCIT(A) for AY 2005-06 deciding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

1) Saudi pawtis dated 11-10- 2010 and 14-10-2010 (2) cancellation document (3) statement given by the assessee u/s.132(4) (4) confirmation of Shri Anil Kotecha cancelling the original transaction in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO. All these documents clearly suggest that the amount of Rs.1 crore was returned back to Shri Anil

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

1) Saudi pawtis dated 11-10- 2010 and 14-10-2010 (2) cancellation document (3) statement given by the assessee u/s.132(4) (4) confirmation of Shri Anil Kotecha cancelling the original transaction in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO. All these documents clearly suggest that the amount of Rs.1 crore was returned back to Shri Anil

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

1) Saudi pawtis dated 11-10- 2010 and 14-10-2010 (2) cancellation document (3) statement given by the assessee u/s.132(4) (4) confirmation of Shri Anil Kotecha cancelling the original transaction in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO. All these documents clearly suggest that the amount of Rs.1 crore was returned back to Shri Anil

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

1) Saudi pawtis dated 11-10- 2010 and 14-10-2010 (2) cancellation document (3) statement given by the assessee u/s.132(4) (4) confirmation of Shri Anil Kotecha cancelling the original transaction in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO. All these documents clearly suggest that the amount of Rs.1 crore was returned back to Shri Anil

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 629/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

1) Saudi pawtis dated 11-10- 2010 and 14-10-2010 (2) cancellation document (3) statement given by the assessee u/s.132(4) (4) confirmation of Shri Anil Kotecha cancelling the original transaction in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO. All these documents clearly suggest that the amount of Rs.1 crore was returned back to Shri Anil

GHATGE PATIL AUTOMOBILES LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 437/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ghatge Patil Automobiles Ltd., 517E, Old P.B. Road, ………. अपीलाथ" / Kolhapur – 416 001. Appellant Pan : Aaacg6596N. बनाम V/S

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

1,59,62,352/- (Rs.6,80,68,308/- – Rs.5,21,05,983/-) and thus made addition of Rs.1,59,62,325/- as long term capital gains. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: “4. During the appellate proceedings same explanation had been advanced