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 21clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,108Mumbai4,968Bangalore1,729Chennai1,210Ahmedabad1,122Kolkata1,069Jaipur1,010Hyderabad872Karnataka709Pune632Surat557Indore532Chandigarh523Raipur290Cochin284Rajkot247Visakhapatnam242Nagpur183Agra160Cuttack156Lucknow146Amritsar142Telangana125Guwahati117Ranchi90SC89Calcutta72Jodhpur65Allahabad64Patna51Panaji43Dehradun39Jabalpur34Varanasi21Orissa12Rajasthan11Kerala10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 153A4Section 683Section 1322Search & Seizure2

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

Section 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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. ROHIT KARAN JAIN

ITA/5/2023
HC Gauhati
12 Mar 2025

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 68 of the Act. The evidence gathered has to be evaluated in the background of what the hon’ble Supreme Court referred to as the test of preponderance of human probability judged on the basis of surrounding circumstances. That there was a scheme is not in doubt and that the assessee is a beneficiary is also an admitted