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 36(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,727Mumbai3,869Bangalore1,378Chennai987Ahmedabad961Kolkata915Jaipur839Karnataka680Hyderabad672Pune449Indore446Chandigarh419Surat327Cochin264Raipur208Visakhapatnam189Rajkot163Nagpur147Lucknow128Agra125Telangana105Cuttack104Guwahati100Amritsar96Ranchi76Jabalpur75Calcutta66SC63Jodhpur60Allahabad56Patna39Panaji33Dehradun28Varanasi27Rajasthan11Orissa10Kerala7Uttarakhand3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

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

36,000/- for the assessment year http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10 1982-83. The orders of the Assessing Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) are based on the presumptions in terms of Section 132 (4A) of the Act. It was held that presumptions under Section 132 (4A) were not confined