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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,322Mumbai9,221Kolkata3,067Bangalore2,334Ahmedabad2,164Chennai2,019Jaipur1,538Hyderabad1,355Pune1,187Surat954Chandigarh873Indore823Karnataka692Rajkot461Cochin424Visakhapatnam410Raipur400Lucknow304Nagpur285Amritsar261Agra244Cuttack234Guwahati226Calcutta159Patna150Ranchi147Telangana147Jodhpur137Jabalpur115Dehradun104Allahabad103Panaji72SC67Varanasi48Rajasthan19Orissa13Kerala10Punjab & Haryana5Uttarakhand4Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 1322

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself has accepted that the entries in the said documents culminating in addition of Rs. 2,62,100 in the assessment for the assessment year 1982-83 pertained to the assessee-Hindu undivided family and upheld the said addition ?" At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion