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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 206C(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore80Delhi61Chennai36Karnataka21Mumbai19Ahmedabad15Chandigarh7Jaipur7Kolkata5Indore4Rajkot4Hyderabad3Varanasi2Cuttack2Agra2Raipur1Amritsar1SC1Uttarakhand1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 2637Addition to Income4Reassessment3Section 682

MONIKA MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

7 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Monika Mondal deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed

ITO, WARD - 3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CHITRAVALI SALES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 68

68 of the Act. In response to this, the ld AR reiterated the submissions made before the ld CITA and took us to the relevant pages of the paper book filed before us. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the various paper books filed by the assessee comprising the entire details

ADIT(IT)-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE TIMKEN COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 387/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

206C would equally apply to s. 44D of the Act. Before the AAR the Assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Waterman Steamship Corporation vs. ITO, Bench-D, Mumbai- in ITA No. 4740/Bom/1978 and ITA No. 2888/Bom/1988 (unreported), in which following the decision of Supreme Court in Sanyasi Rao’s case (supra

THE TIMKEN COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. THE DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 1268/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

206C would equally apply to s. 44D of the Act. Before the AAR the Assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Waterman Steamship Corporation vs. ITO, Bench-D, Mumbai- in ITA No. 4740/Bom/1978 and ITA No. 2888/Bom/1988 (unreported), in which following the decision of Supreme Court in Sanyasi Rao’s case (supra

THE TIMKEN COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - II,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 2139/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

206C would equally apply to s. 44D of the Act. Before the AAR the Assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Waterman Steamship Corporation vs. ITO, Bench-D, Mumbai- in ITA No. 4740/Bom/1978 and ITA No. 2888/Bom/1988 (unreported), in which following the decision of Supreme Court in Sanyasi Rao’s case (supra