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(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi9,235Mumbai8,042Bangalore2,356Kolkata2,315Chennai1,815Ahmedabad1,810Jaipur1,400Hyderabad1,298Pune1,153Surat823Chandigarh814Karnataka774Indore750Cochin510Raipur436Rajkot413Visakhapatnam370Nagpur251Amritsar245Lucknow222Cuttack212Agra205Guwahati193Telangana151Jodhpur122Ranchi117SC110Jabalpur106Calcutta100Allahabad99Patna94Panaji92Dehradun75Varanasi36Rajasthan18Kerala13Orissa11Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 1322

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

10 of the Act, it has been held that the same is not limited to the passing of an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 only; the same presumption can be raised for framing the regular assessment as well. The Bench has recorded its dissent with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Pushkar

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

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

10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 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