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.

442 results for “section 68”+ Section 276clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi504Karnataka442Mumbai350Bangalore150Ahmedabad116Kolkata98Jaipur93Chennai58Hyderabad55Indore41Rajkot36Allahabad30Chandigarh26Calcutta18Cochin17Patna16Surat13SC12Nagpur9Raipur8Jodhpur8Cuttack7Pune6Telangana6Guwahati6Agra6Visakhapatnam5Rajasthan5Amritsar3Lucknow3Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Dehradun1Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income41Section 26012Section 279Section 260A2Section 42

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/168/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 68

68 is applicable when the appellant has not maintained books of accounts on the facts and circumstances of the case? (v) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

ITA/714/2009HC Karnataka21 Aug 2015

Showing 1–20 of 442 · Page 1 of 23

...

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice N.S.Sanjay Gowda R.F.A.No.714/2009(Par) C/W R.F.A.Crob.No.7/2010

276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking for grant of probate of a Will dated 25.05.1985 which was stated to have been executed by Sidda Reddy, the younger brother of Ramaiah Reddy i.e., their paternal uncle. He stated that this setting up of a Will of Sidda 24 Reddy dated 25.05.1985 was basically to defeat the claim of Rathnamma

SRI S MOHAMMED RAFIQ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/199/2009HC Karnataka12 Jan 2015

Bench: Assessing Officer Warrants To Treat The Gift As Unexplained Credit, Notwithstanding Confirmation & Affidavit Are Filed & Inability To Produce Them As Donee?

Section 260Section 68

276/- made as unexplained credit ignoring the same is out of agricultural income of onions? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that failure to produce Donor before Assessing Officer warrants to treat the gift as unexplained credit, notwithstanding confirmation and affidavit are filed and inability to produce

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

WP/13261/2020HC Karnataka16 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

Section 19Section 482

276 WP No. 13261 of 2020 33 that the cash was deposited in the accounts of Petitioner just before the fund transfers to Mohammed Anoop. Further: 3.12.9. There is no interest payment by Shri. Mohammed Anoop on loan taken from the Petitioner. 3.12.10. The loan is stated to be taken by Petitioner in the name of M/s. Old Coffee House

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

276(c) of the Income Tax Act. 41. In almost every case relating to penalty, judgment in Dharmendra’s case was referred to on behalf of the Revenue as if it laid down that in every case of non payment or short payment of duty the penalty clause could automatically get attracted and the authority has no discretion

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30917/2016HC Karnataka10 Nov 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

WTA/1/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

276, 278 (1946) (Black, J.). (4) New Webster’s Dictionary Own: Distinctly and emphatically belonging to oneself: usu. used following a possessive pronoun or a noun in the possessive; as, my own idea; pertaining to oneself; as, my own niece. To hold or possess, esp. property; to acknowledge. To admit, used with to or up. - hold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

WTA/6/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

276, 278 (1946) (Black, J.). (4) New Webster’s Dictionary Own: Distinctly and emphatically belonging to oneself: usu. used following a possessive pronoun or a noun in the possessive; as, my own idea; pertaining to oneself; as, my own niece. To hold or possess, esp. property; to acknowledge. To admit, used with to or up. - hold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

WTA/2/2014HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

276, 278 (1946) (Black, J.). (4) New Webster’s Dictionary Own: Distinctly and emphatically belonging to oneself: usu. used following a possessive pronoun or a noun in the possessive; as, my own idea; pertaining to oneself; as, my own niece. To hold or possess, esp. property; to acknowledge. To admit, used with to or up. - hold

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

OLR/6/2015HC Karnataka10 Feb 2015

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

Section 27

276, 278 (1946) (Black, J.). (4) New Webster’s Dictionary Own: Distinctly and emphatically belonging to oneself: usu. used following a possessive pronoun or a noun in the possessive; as, my own idea; pertaining to oneself; as, my own niece. To hold or possess, esp. property; to acknowledge. To admit, used with to or up. - hold

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/235/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

WP/29668/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27625/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/50955/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12975/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

WP/8176/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36324/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER