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.

564 results for “section 68”+ Section 119(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi958Mumbai670Karnataka564Bangalore285Ahmedabad171Jaipur169Chennai141Hyderabad141Chandigarh136Indore88Kolkata87Cochin74Pune71Raipur58Jabalpur52Calcutta51Visakhapatnam46Telangana44Surat36Nagpur34Allahabad32Cuttack27Lucknow27Ranchi26Guwahati24Rajkot24Patna22Amritsar16SC15Agra10Varanasi7Rajasthan5Jodhpur5Orissa4Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income36Section 26010Section 153C2Section 1442Section 1152Section 1002Section 234A2Section 54E2Section 2342

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Showing 1–20 of 564 · Page 1 of 29

...

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

WP/42424/2012HC Karnataka02 Jul 2013

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 119(2)(c)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 54E

68 of 1988) during the financial year 2006-07 as “long-term specified asset” for the purpose of the said section.” “Notification No.S.O.964(E), dated 29th June 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central

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 254Section 260

119 ITR 872. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the Order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition in R.L. Rajghoria Vs. Income-Tax Officer [1977] 107 ITR 347 held that the word ‘thereon’ appearing in Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 akin to Section 254 (1) of the Income

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/6918/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/18788/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/38127/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/19762/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/16939/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/26589/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23541/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/13065/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/37689/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/41614/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10243/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/3725/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11889/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14669/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/12097/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

119 has to be credited to Consolidated Fund of India or of the State concerned, as the case may be, and will thus necessarily get merged in the public revenues and cannot be set apart.” 20. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that assessee is required to file e-returns to Central Processing Centre –CPC for processing