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”+ Section 10(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi9,126Mumbai7,968Bangalore2,345Kolkata2,281Ahmedabad1,812Chennai1,778Jaipur1,398Hyderabad1,262Pune1,156Surat818Chandigarh814Karnataka774Indore725Cochin511Raipur436Rajkot403Visakhapatnam352Amritsar242Nagpur233Lucknow216Cuttack213Agra204Guwahati194Telangana151Ranchi131Jodhpur129SC110Jabalpur107Calcutta101Allahabad99Patna92Panaji92Dehradun75Varanasi36Rajasthan18Kerala13Orissa11Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

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

68,00,757.00 + Rs. 1,15,000.00 = Rs. 69, 15, 757.00) (v) Depreciation on leased vehicles claimed at 40% was reduced to 20% (as in the original assessment) and an amount of Rs. 10,28,462.00 was disallowed. (vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount

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

1, 1995. Even after this date the section is still available in the statute. Therefore, an inference can safely be drawn in the light of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 132 itself that no limited presumption can be attached to Section 132(4A). At the same time we must also point out that