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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,274Delhi1,490Kolkata854Ahmedabad623Bangalore363Chennai349Jaipur341Pune315Chandigarh283Karnataka239Hyderabad205Surat178Rajkot146Raipur138Nagpur134Indore114Cochin108Visakhapatnam103Amritsar101Guwahati84Cuttack77Lucknow61Ranchi49Calcutta37SC28Allahabad25Jodhpur22Patna21Agra17Telangana15Jabalpur15Varanasi13Dehradun4Panaji3Rajasthan3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Kerala1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1

BARUNEI ROLLER FLOUR MILL (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1

In the result, the award of the maximum uniform rate for the

ITA/1/2022HC Orissa03 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

loss suffered on account of severance of land etc. was not pleaded in the application, not part of the reference order and thus also outside the scope of the reference. (v) In response, to the respondents arguments that the Collector was obliged to make the reference and not referring the issue was his fault, and the judgment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S. M.M. ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS

ITA/72/2022HC Orissa08 Jan 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

For Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General alongwith Mr
Section 132(4)
Section 3(1)
Section 482

loss to public exchequer. It is alleged that, during the period of 2017-2021, the Detenu No.1 had imported goods amounting to an estimated value of Rs.2730 crores, on which differential duty liability was estimated to be the sum of Rs 500 crores, whereas the actual declared value of the subject imported goods before the customs was statedly Rs.136 crores