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.

552 results for “section 68”+ Section 108clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,041Mumbai979Karnataka552Bangalore318Ahmedabad229Chennai223Jaipur218Hyderabad209Indore196Kolkata164Pune121Cochin103Chandigarh98Agra85Surat81Rajkot64Calcutta60Telangana58Raipur57Nagpur48Cuttack41Visakhapatnam33Lucknow28Guwahati15Amritsar14Allahabad14SC13Jodhpur13Patna7Orissa6Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Dehradun1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income36Section 26016Section 1476Section 143(2)6Section 10B6Section 260A4Section 283Section 1002Section 292B2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S PRASADHINI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits

ITA/390/2012HC Karnataka16 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa Regular Second Appeal No.390/2012 (Res)

Section 100

68 of suit or appeal. Thus, the said section deals with the admissibility of ancient documents, dispensing with proof as would be required, in the usual course of events in a usual manner. 57. In the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. –vs- Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another reported in (1999)5 SCC 590 the Hon’ble Supreme while

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254

Showing 1–20 of 552 · Page 1 of 28

...
Section 260

108/- per share as against the face value of `10/- per share which were probably issued during 2002 when the said Company started its business in India and which was nothing but an avoidance of tax payment in India by shifting of huge Reserves and Surpluses of the Indian Company to its Mauritius Holding Company where too, on the Holding

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

ITA/696/2019HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 48

68) of the Companies Act, 2013, the right of transfer of shares in a Private 5Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A No.695/2019 C/W I.T.A No.696/2019 6 Limited Company is restricted and in this case, in the manner and to the extent appearing in the para 8 of the Articles of Association; • the expenses incurred have inextricable

M/S APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMiTED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/13810/2018HC Karnataka27 Nov 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 111Section 112Section 28Section 28ASection 3Section 4A

68,087/- should not be confiscated under Section 111[m] of the Customs Act, 1962. [ii] The differential duty of Rs.9,70,981/- should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 28[4] of the Customs Act, 1962. [iii] Interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1961 should not be levied

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

WA/1105/2019HC Karnataka24 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 4

68. SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK (SITE NO.322, SY NO.49) 69. SRI. M. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LAWTE UMA MAHESHWARAPPA 75 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.579, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, B.M. SHRENAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.289, SY NO.49 70. SRI. M.C. VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O LATE M.G. CHKRAPANI

V. GOPALAPPA vs. THE SECRETARY

WP/11581/2018HC Karnataka24 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

108, 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD VISHVESHVARAYYANAGAR BALLARY - 583 101 42.M SADHU SEKHAR S/O LATE MOSES AGED 64 YEARS, R/O #22, BETHEL NILAYA, SOWDHAGAR NAGAR COLONY, NEAR ORD CONTT BALLARY - 583 104. 43.E RAMAKRISHNA S/O E RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.29, MIG, KHB COLONY MOKA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR BALLARY-583101 32 44.PAPE GOWDA S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA AGED

H. SANNEGOWDA vs. THE SECRETARY

WP/11560/2018HC Karnataka24 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

108, 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD VISHVESHVARAYYANAGAR BALLARY - 583 101 42.M SADHU SEKHAR S/O LATE MOSES AGED 64 YEARS, R/O #22, BETHEL NILAYA, SOWDHAGAR NAGAR COLONY, NEAR ORD CONTT BALLARY - 583 104. 43.E RAMAKRISHNA S/O E RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.29, MIG, KHB COLONY MOKA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR BALLARY-583101 32 44.PAPE GOWDA S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA AGED

A RAJANNA vs. THE SECRETARY

WP/10883/2018HC Karnataka24 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

108, 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD VISHVESHVARAYYANAGAR BALLARY - 583 101 42.M SADHU SEKHAR S/O LATE MOSES AGED 64 YEARS, R/O #22, BETHEL NILAYA, SOWDHAGAR NAGAR COLONY, NEAR ORD CONTT BALLARY - 583 104. 43.E RAMAKRISHNA S/O E RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.29, MIG, KHB COLONY MOKA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR BALLARY-583101 32 44.PAPE GOWDA S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA AGED

H SUBBARAM vs. THE SECRETARY

WP/6922/2017HC Karnataka24 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

108, 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD VISHVESHVARAYYANAGAR BALLARY - 583 101 42.M SADHU SEKHAR S/O LATE MOSES AGED 64 YEARS, R/O #22, BETHEL NILAYA, SOWDHAGAR NAGAR COLONY, NEAR ORD CONTT BALLARY - 583 104. 43.E RAMAKRISHNA S/O E RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.29, MIG, KHB COLONY MOKA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR BALLARY-583101 32 44.PAPE GOWDA S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA AGED

YOGISH M vs. THE REGISTRAR

Accordingly they are dismissed

WA/5410/2012HC Karnataka28 Sept 2012

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,VIKRAMAJIT SEN (CJ)

Section 4

68 7TH SEM 212. S. VIVEK AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. SHADAKSHARI SWAMY, NO.86, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS OPP.KALABHAVANA, K.R. EXTN. TIPTUR, 7TH SEM 213. KUNAL KISHORE AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRA KISHORE PRASAD VPS ARCADE, BHADRAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE 214. SUSHIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O TRIBHUVAN RAM, NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, VPS ARCADE, BHADRAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/17894/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

WP/15917/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/24444/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

SHRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/36310/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

SHRI V BHASKAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/27744/2018HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

WP/15918/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

NATARAJ DAKSHINAMURHTY vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

WP/6159/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment

C MAHADESH @ AVVAMAHADESH vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/46318/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

Section 60 of PML Act would indicate that whatever orders that are passed under the PML Act, would be applicable in a contracting state or in India. He would submit by interpreting Chapter IX that it cannot be said that order of attachment is vitiated though reciprocal agreement provides otherwise. He would submit that where an order of attachment