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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 158Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai137Bangalore64Delhi56Jaipur25Chandigarh24Hyderabad23Kolkata14Pune8Karnataka7Nagpur6Guwahati5Lucknow3Rajkot2Indore1SC1

Key Topics

Section 26019Section 260A7Section 153C4Section 1444Section 139(4)4Section 139(1)3Section 1322Section 143(3)2Block Assessment2Undisclosed Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

158B(b) of the Act. It is for the above reason that Sections 153A and 153C begin with a non obstante clause in order to make these provisions exclusive of Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income as defined in Chapter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/403/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260
2

158B(b) of the Act. It is for the above reason that Sections 153A and 153C begin with a non obstante clause in order to make these provisions exclusive of Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income as defined in Chapter

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2014HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

158B(b) of the Act. It is for the above reason that Sections 153A and 153C begin with a non obstante clause in order to make these provisions exclusive of Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income as defined in Chapter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

ITA/384/2007HC Karnataka25 Nov 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 158Section 260A

158B defines what a “Block period” is, as well as “undisclosed income”. Section 158BB dealing with undisclosed income reads as under: Computation of undisclosed income of the block period. 158BB. (1) The undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed, in accordance with

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

68,753 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 13 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 13. It is further contended by the standing counsel for the appellant, that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

ITA/274/2004HC Karnataka04 Jul 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 45

158B in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, revelation of any undisclosed income should be clear and direct. As we find that it is not so in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the scope for interference with the order of the tribunal under Section 260A of the Act is very less and therefore