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.

495 results for “section 68”+ Section 153Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi495Mumbai325Jaipur118Chennai115Hyderabad75Cochin71Bangalore70Chandigarh42Guwahati38Visakhapatnam29Pune27Patna26Allahabad21Ahmedabad16Agra12Dehradun10Nagpur9Surat9Indore9Lucknow8Karnataka7Raipur5Rajkot5Amritsar4Jodhpur4Cuttack3Kolkata3SC2Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 153D168Section 153A137Section 153C98Addition to Income63Section 143(3)56Section 26349Search & Seizure29Section 13226Section 25025Limitation/Time-bar

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/783/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/799/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

Showing 1–20 of 495 · Page 1 of 25

...
23
Section 6820
Reassessment16

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY

ITA/707/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/788/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY

ITA/694/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/72/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY (L/H LATE SH. B.L. SAWHNEY )

ITA/216/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/75/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/74/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/89/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/76/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/787/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/93/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/88/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/92/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/69/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/796/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/781/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/790/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY

ITA/94/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

153B of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that the period during which a stay order was granted, that is, from 24.08.2000 till 15.12.2006 when the judgment setting aside the direction issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act was delivered, was to be excluded for computing the period available for passing the assessment order. However, it is material