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”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,746Mumbai1,962Jaipur555Hyderabad545Chennai506Bangalore384Ahmedabad252Kolkata232Pune223Chandigarh208Karnataka142Indore131Surat126Cochin122Visakhapatnam111Rajkot90Guwahati89Nagpur80Raipur60Lucknow44Patna41Allahabad39Ranchi37Cuttack33Jodhpur28Agra23Amritsar22Dehradun20SC17Telangana16Jabalpur8Calcutta6Orissa5Rajasthan2Panaji2Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 132(4)2Section 172Addition to Income2Search & Seizure2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

ITA/4/2021HC Orissa21 Nov 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

Section 120BSection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)Section 17Section 26Section 42

Section 17 of the PMLA, as well as Rules 3 and 4 of the PMLA (Search and Seizure or Freezing of Property) Rules, 2005. Such non-compliance renders the freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 issued by the ED not only procedurally defective but also substantively contrary to law. 68

NEELACHAL I.NIGAM L. vs. ASST.COMNR.OF I.TAX

ITA/8/2005
HC Orissa
17 Nov 2021

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 143(1)(a)

seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

BISWAJIT BEHERA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), BBSR

ITA/17/2024HC Orissa08 Oct 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

68 of the Act in the hands of ultimate company and separate addition in the hands of investor would lead to double taxation. V. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding non-application of mind on the part of Addl. CIT without calling the details of assessments

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA

ITA/10/2024HC Orissa15 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 132(4)Section 68

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 19613, having observed as follows:- “7. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the dispute in the aforesaid three assessment years relates to addition of investments made on account of share capital and share premium by two entities with the assessee

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

seizure operation on 10.10.2021 at 23 premises allegedly belonging to the Detenu No. 1 and persons allegedly associated with him. Thereupon, a Statement (Annexure P-4) of the Detenu No.1 was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the 11.10.2021, wherein the Detenu No. 1 admittedly stated that he had studied only till the VIII standard