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 17(5)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,136Delhi4,844Bangalore1,762Chennai1,321Ahmedabad1,129Kolkata1,035Jaipur971Hyderabad706Karnataka694Indore585Pune528Surat528Chandigarh409Cochin321Visakhapatnam265Raipur251Rajkot223Nagpur187Cuttack164Lucknow145Agra145Amritsar102Telangana100Guwahati86SC85Allahabad79Calcutta66Patna61Ranchi56Jodhpur53Panaji39Dehradun32Varanasi25Jabalpur19Rajasthan12Orissa9Kerala8Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

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

17. In the present case, we find that prior to introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act in the present form, there was no liability to pay interest on difference between finally assessed duty and provisionally assessed duty upon payment of which the assessee may have cleared the goods. It was only with effect

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

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

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the aforesaid demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in original dated 13.02.2002, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent. Next level appeal filed by the respondent before the CESTAT, Bangalore, however, yielded results favourable to the respondent, as this

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

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. Between June 1995 and March 1997, the appellants purchased syringes and needles in bulk from the open market. They would then sterilize the syringes and the needles and put one syringe and one needle in an unassembled form in a printed plastic pouch. The syringe and the needle were capable