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(22)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,740Mumbai4,562Bangalore1,646Chennai1,160Kolkata1,083Ahmedabad1,034Jaipur933Hyderabad836Karnataka705Pune641Surat498Chandigarh498Indore495Raipur284Cochin263Visakhapatnam244Rajkot217Cuttack153Agra152Nagpur150Amritsar135Lucknow125Telangana122Guwahati102Ranchi88SC82Calcutta73Allahabad66Jodhpur57Patna50Panaji38Dehradun38Jabalpur23Varanasi18Rajasthan11Orissa10Kerala10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Himachal Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 685Section 153A3Section 260A2Addition to Income2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR vs. M/S GOLDSTONE CEMENTS LTD.

ITA/10/2022HC Gauhati28 Sept 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

68 of the Act constituted incriminating material or not, is purely a question of fact. As per Dr. Saraf, the appeals do not involve any question of law much less a substantial question of law and hence, the same do not merit admission. In support of his contentions, Dr. Saraf placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) Principal Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. M/S GOLDSTONE CEMENTS LTD.

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

68 of share application money of Rs. 34,69,54,848/- received from Shantidham Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and Orchid Finlease Pvt. Ltd?” 10. Apt therefore to first determine whether the questions framed by this Court as stated above involves a substantial question of law or not. The Apex Court in the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, reported