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”+ Section 11(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,062Mumbai5,170Bangalore1,791Kolkata1,350Ahmedabad1,191Chennai1,153Jaipur1,025Hyderabad736Karnataka708Pune630Chandigarh554Surat510Indore472Cochin328Raipur267Rajkot221Visakhapatnam202Lucknow160Cuttack154Amritsar149Agra139Nagpur138Guwahati136Telangana107SC90Calcutta75Panaji66Ranchi64Jodhpur60Allahabad58Patna46Dehradun37Varanasi25Jabalpur21Rajasthan13Orissa12Kerala11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

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

11. Section 9(2-A) makes applicable to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax the provisions relating to offences and penalties contained in the State Acts as if the Central sales tax was a State sales tax. But Section 9(2-A) makes no reference to interest. 12. There is no substantive provision

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD vs. M/S SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

C.A. No.-004480-004480 - 2005Supreme Court14 May 2015
Section 11A
Section 4A

C) No. 1531 of 2015) J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2005 Respondent herein is the manufacture of 'Ketoconazole Shampoo' and 'Nizral Shampoo' which are sold in the bottles of 50 ml and 5 ml. Dispute is about the classification of the aforesaid product for the purposes of payment

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