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”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7,738Mumbai6,499Bangalore2,006Kolkata1,630Chennai1,514Ahmedabad1,409Jaipur1,230Hyderabad1,076Pune851Karnataka739Surat671Chandigarh647Indore638Cochin378Raipur369Visakhapatnam315Rajkot299Nagpur204Amritsar193Cuttack193Agra175Lucknow167Guwahati148Telangana139Ranchi109SC103Jodhpur103Calcutta92Patna81Jabalpur81Allahabad80Dehradun65Panaji45Varanasi25Rajasthan15Orissa12Kerala12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati3Punjab & Haryana2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 54F2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN

ITA/59/2023HC Punjab & Haryana09 May 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 54F

68 83/Mum/2014 which al decision. Accordingly, in t circumstance of the present cas herein above considering the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, ITA No. 802/ infirmity in the order of he same. We have heard arties and perused the cases relied upon by the lowed the deductions u/s t the amended provisions n as the claim of the ment

RANJIT SINGH GHUMAN vs. C I T

ITA/216/2007HC Punjab & Haryana17 May 2024

Bench: The Revenue Authorities That A Sum Of ` 5,00,000/- Was Still Due To Be Paid & Varinder Singh 2024.05.21 13:43 I Attest To The Accuracy & Authencity Of This Order/Judgment

Section 158

Section 158 BC (c) on 26.02.2002 by the CIT, Jalandhar and while making other VARINDER SINGH 2024.05.21 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No. 216 of 2007 -3- additions, ` 5,00,000/- have been added as undisclosed investment made to acquire the rights of his sister-in-law in the family property