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.

27 results for “section 68”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai156Delhi146Bangalore52Ahmedabad47Kolkata31Pune27Hyderabad25Jaipur23Chennai16Chandigarh15Cuttack12Visakhapatnam7Surat7Guwahati5Karnataka3Cochin3Indore3Nagpur2Ranchi2SC2Lucknow2Orissa1Panaji1Amritsar1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 80I14Addition to Income14Deduction14Section 153A12Section 201(1)12Section 6811Section 1958Disallowance8Section 127

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI, L/H OF LAT KANHAIYALAL V. GIDWANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1799/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 2(2)(e)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. We notice that the assessee is related to Sunil K. Gidwani and they are part of the same family. Sunil K. Gidwani has offered income of Rs.13,19,928

AMIT KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 2346
Depreciation6
ITA 1792/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 2(2)(e)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. We notice that the assessee is related to Sunil K. Gidwani and they are part of the same family. Sunil K. Gidwani has offered income of Rs.13,19,928

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

928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC /80- ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission

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

928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC /80- ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission

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

928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC /80- ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission

BURCKHARDT COMPRESSION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 221/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.221/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Burckhardt Compression India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.304, Village: Kondhapuri, Pune – Nagar Road, Tal: Shirur, Pune-412209. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aadcb2058D …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avchat Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Drp/Tpo/Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of “1. Rs.2,08,64,219/- On Account Of Adjustment Made To International Transaction Of Payment Of Management Services & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Erred In Directing The Disallowance. The Assessee Company Has Made Payment To Its Associated 2. Enterprise Of Rs.2,08,64,219/- Towards Manufacturing Service Fees & There Is Error Of Considering In Assessment An Arm’S Length Price Of This Expenditure As ‘Nil’. 3. The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 In Pursuance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel, Dated 23.12.2015 Of The Ao In Case Of The Assessee Is Bad In Law. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Mishra
Section 143(3)

68,928/-. For TPO, the transaction of payment of Management Services Fee (MSF) of Rs.2,08,64,219/- with BC-AG is the solitary transaction for TP adjustments. 6. The assessee paid this amount to BG-AG towards reimbursement/recovery of actual cost incurred by the BC-AG. 7. In TP study by assessee, the TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1493/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1492/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 930/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

M/S. ABL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 2501/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Shweta Mishra
Section 40

68,831/- on which the assessee deducted Rs.203/- and SREI Infra Sany Concrete Pumps HL-0023691 of Rs.1,12,527/- on 2 M/s. ABL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which TDS deducted is Rs.340/-. The TDS was to be deducted @10% on the above said interest amounts. As the assessee has not deducted the TDS @10%, the remaining TDS amounting to Rs.2

VENTURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

928/-, wherein the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had made the aforesaid adjustment to its international transactions in connection with provision of Call Centre Services by not accepting comparability analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report. The assessee is also aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer / TPO in changing Profit Level Indicator by including expenses recovered by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. VENTURA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1800/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

928/-, wherein the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had made the aforesaid adjustment to its international transactions in connection with provision of Call Centre Services by not accepting comparability analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report. The assessee is also aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer / TPO in changing Profit Level Indicator by including expenses recovered by the assessee

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)

928,969/- was not covered under Royalties and or fees for technical services of the DTAA between India and USA as well as under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the Appellant Company was not required to withhold tax u/s. 195 on above amounts and accordingly, the demands raised of tax and interest

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)

928,969/- was not covered under Royalties and or fees for technical services of the DTAA between India and USA as well as under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the Appellant Company was not required to withhold tax u/s. 195 on above amounts and accordingly, the demands raised of tax and interest