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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 6(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,683Delhi2,294Bangalore813Chennai516Jaipur514Hyderabad440Ahmedabad348Pune305Chandigarh269Kolkata262Indore201Cochin180Surat115Rajkot114Visakhapatnam101Raipur100Nagpur91Amritsar83SC79Lucknow77Patna70Agra58Jodhpur41Cuttack39Guwahati32Allahabad18Dehradun18Jabalpur12Varanasi12Ranchi8Panaji7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 23Section 11A3Penalty2Exemption2

M/S GMR ENERGY LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,BANGALORE

C.A. No.-004920-004920 - 2007Supreme Court27 Oct 2015

6. By an order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the learned Commissioner specifically found that as per the LTAPSA since the assessee has declared only the differential value of the returned parts and the parts imported, 1/3rd of the invoice value of the imported parts needs to be added to arrive at the correct assessable value. Thus

COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVNAGAR vs. M/S GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD,JAFRABAD

C.A. No.-003347-003348 - 2014Supreme Court22 Jul 2015
Section 37Section 65(82)

1) on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. (4) No person authorized under sub-section (3) shall charge or recover for such service any sum in excess of the amount leviable according to the scale framed under Section 37, 38 or 40. (5) Any such person shall, if so required by the owner perform in respect

M/S GUJARAT INDUSTRIES vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I,AHMEDABAD

C.A. No.-005784-005788 - 2007Supreme Court14 Dec 2015
Section 11ASection 2

1 of 18 Page 2 JUDGMENT Excise Act, 1944? (b) Whether the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in holding that the process of cold-rolling of stainless steel patta/pattis amounts to manufacture in view of Chapter No.4 of Chapter No.72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when the said Chapter Note was not even referred

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside

C.A. No.-000583-000583 - 2005Supreme Court07 May 2015
Section 2

Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, there is no mention of the test of integral or inextricable process and found that the wrong test had been applied to arrive at the wrong result. 5. The CESTAT in turn set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observing: “An Article with distinct brand name and separate