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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,107Delhi2,549Bangalore1,035Chennai777Kolkata762Ahmedabad735Karnataka546Jaipur507Pune435Hyderabad341Chandigarh277Surat274Indore243Cochin206Rajkot123Lucknow122Raipur110Cuttack89Nagpur88Calcutta86Guwahati76Visakhapatnam74SC69Jabalpur67Amritsar60Ranchi45Panaji42Telangana34Agra30Patna30Allahabad27Varanasi19Jodhpur17Dehradun14Kerala7Rajasthan6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Orissa3Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 3A2Section 682Exemption2Addition to Income2

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.A. No.-007189-007189 - 2005Supreme Court04 Aug 2015
Section 12Section 18Section 3ASection 68Section 9A

68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI-I vs. M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA

The appeal is disposed of

C.A. No.-000216-000216 - 2007Supreme Court04 Sept 2015
Section 3A
Section 68
Section 7

Exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. dated 13.06.1998 which reads as follows:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), the Central Government having regard to the maximum sales tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on the like goods on their sale

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