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.

65 results for “section 68”+ Section 56(2)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,652Mumbai1,024Karnataka572Bangalore366Ahmedabad299Jaipur270Chennai257Kolkata164Hyderabad163Chandigarh127Indore125Cochin83Pune65Calcutta58Cuttack52Surat50Raipur42Rajkot41Telangana38Guwahati37Visakhapatnam34Nagpur32Panaji31Lucknow30SC25Ranchi20Agra19Jodhpur18Dehradun10Amritsar10Allahabad10Patna9Kerala7Rajasthan6Varanasi4Orissa3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)52Section 234C48Addition to Income36Section 153A32Section 13229Disallowance28Section 92C(3)24Search & Seizure19Section 201(1)18Section 68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1801/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

68,141/- from its\ninvestments with Co-operative Banks. In the computation of total income\nsubmitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee claimed that it is a Co-\noperative Society and as such income of Rs.5,15,78,931/- from above-stated\ninterest receipts is deductible under section 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO held\nthat section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

16
Section 80P15
Survey u/s 133A9

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1800/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: \nShri S. Sadananda Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

68,141/- from its\ninvestments with Co-operative Banks. In the computation of total income\nsubmitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee claimed that it is a Co-\noperative Society and as such income of Rs.5,15,78,931/- from above-stated\ninterest receipts is deductible under section 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO held\nthat section

SARIKA ASHOK SATAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1952/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

56(2) (vii) of the I.T. Act cannot be accepted in principle, as these properties had not been gifted by her husband by making a will/gift deed or any other means of transfer. This contention of the Appellant lacks merit. 5.2 It is thus very clear that, the Appellant was unable to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also made further 26 CO No.43/PUN/2025 addition of the interest paid of Rs.17,80,059/- by invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

NASHIK DISTRICT PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2070/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: ShriSanket JoshiFor Respondent: ShriRamnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

vii) While section 194A(3)(v) has been so amended, Section 8OP(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative banks explicitly viii) Provisions relating to exemption and deduction need to be strictly construed and no liberal interpretation on intendment can be inferred in such provisions. An interest income not allowed as deduction u/s 80P(2

SURESH GULABCHAND OSWAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

ITA 2493/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

68 the Act. The assessment was completed on 20.12.2017 u/s 143(3) 7 of the Act on total income of Rs.61,31,800/- including therein –(i) addition of Rs.24,66,500/- under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 907/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1277/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1276/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1278/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1540/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1541/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1542/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1275/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1274/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

68 rowhouses. This was one of its kind projects catering to the needs of higher social class. 4. Owning a rowhouse gives a sense of individual/independent home with a personal touch. Consequently, a prospective purchaser has his/her personal test and requirements with respect to the home he / she is going to live in, with best possible interior decoration. In view

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

56,225/- 27,41,121/- 3.1 Further, on perusal of assessment records, it is found that there is substantial variation between consideration received or accrued and value adopted or assessed or assessable. The same difference is corroborated by the Index-II submitted with respect to the concerned sales. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had relied