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.

34,215 results for “section 68”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi8,665Mumbai7,413Bangalore2,254Kolkata1,960Chennai1,679Ahmedabad1,643Jaipur1,332Hyderabad1,232Pune1,096Karnataka769Surat765Chandigarh764Indore721Cochin444Raipur408Rajkot368Visakhapatnam346Lucknow230Nagpur229Amritsar214Cuttack212Agra205Guwahati187Telangana148Ranchi117Jodhpur108SC101Calcutta94Jabalpur92Allahabad91Panaji84Patna80Dehradun67Varanasi32Rajasthan19Orissa12Kerala12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 6869Section 143(3)43Section 14730Deduction25Disallowance25Section 14820Section 153C20Section 1120Section 14A

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11

Showing 1–20 of 34,215 · Page 1 of 1,711

...
15
Penalty14
Section 143(2)12
Section 11(1)
Section 11(2)
Section 12A
Section 13(3)
Section 143(3)
Section 250
Section 80G
Section 80G(5)

11, on account of the restoration of registration under section 12A of the Act through an order dated 20.10.2021 and while the Department had filed appeal against the said order of the ITAT, the same was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. With regard to the addition of Rs 5,59.55.800/- under section 68

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nSh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "11", "12", "12A", "12AA(3)", "11(1)(d)", "11(1)(a)", "11(2)", "68", "234A

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

section 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner provided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem to fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to additional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09
Section 11Section 12A

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08
Section 11Section 12A

11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner\nprovided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09
Section 11Section 12A

11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner\nprovided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08
Section 11Section 12A

section 11, declined to allow the assessee the benefit of\naccumulation under section 11(2) in either assessment year because of (i) its failure\nto specify the purpose for accumulation in assessment year 2007-08 and (ii) its\nfailure to file Form No.10 before the completion before the completion of\nassessment and also to specify purpose of accumulation

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

ITTA/441/2013HC Telangana24 Sept 2013

68. There is also merit in the contention of the Petitioners that Section 28(11) confers validity only on „the proper

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPREME PLACEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANGEL CEMENT PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 5397/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 510/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 509/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2920/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6070/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERSTAR AGENCY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 11. Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. 24.03.20 2012- 143(3) 29.09.2012 - Share Capital – section 68 15 13 30,00,00,000 15,48,189/- - 31,60,00,000 Current