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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 32(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,699Mumbai3,809Bangalore1,390Chennai1,001Ahmedabad862Kolkata814Jaipur731Hyderabad725Karnataka691Pune456Indore423Chandigarh381Surat348Cochin277Raipur223Visakhapatnam201Rajkot194Cuttack120Agra116Nagpur115Lucknow115Amritsar108Telangana105Guwahati98Ranchi80SC69Panaji67Calcutta65Jabalpur64Allahabad56Jodhpur44Patna43Varanasi20Dehradun20Rajasthan12Orissa8Kerala8Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)6Section 2634Section 115B3Section 682Section 260A2Section 80P(2)2Section 80P(2)(d)2Business Income2Deduction2

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

1, 2017 set off of any loss was also excluded with respect to the income referred to under section 68 of the Act. The contention of the standing counsel is that the method of computation with respect to profits and gains of business, the provision enumerated under sections 28 and 29 of the Act provides that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA/142/2019HC Kerala01 Nov 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,899 Kerala State Co-operative Bank 6,21,881 District Treasury 5,43,014 Kerala State Consumer Federation Co-operative Society 15,97,654 Consumerfed 20,12,798 Kerala State Rubber Marketing Federation Co-operative Society 5,56,484 Neyyattinkara School Teachers Co- operative Society 2,32,500 Trivandrum Taluk Co-operative Employees Society 1,05,000 Total

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA/5/2020HC Kerala01 Nov 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,899 Kerala State Co-operative Bank 6,21,881 District Treasury 5,43,014 Kerala State Consumer Federation Co-operative Society 15,97,654 Consumerfed 20,12,798 Kerala State Rubber Marketing Federation Co-operative Society 5,56,484 Neyyattinkara School Teachers Co- operative Society 2,32,500 Trivandrum Taluk Co-operative Employees Society 1,05,000 Total

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section