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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,128Delhi1,404Kolkata829Ahmedabad631Pune380Bangalore344Chennai329Jaipur312Chandigarh294Karnataka239Hyderabad197Surat174Raipur150Rajkot119Nagpur116Visakhapatnam113Indore109Cochin109Amritsar100Cuttack88Guwahati84Lucknow58Ranchi49Calcutta37SC28Allahabad25Patna18Jodhpur17Agra16Telangana15Jabalpur15Varanasi13Dehradun4Panaji3Rajasthan3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Kerala1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income2

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Section 3 of the 1976 Act. The statement of objects and reasons disclosed that the purpose of the 1976 Act was to undo the settlements which had been arrived at between the Corporation and Class III and Class IV employees (the validity of which had been recognised by the order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD

In the result, Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned judgment and

ITA/83/2020HC Rajasthan07 May 2022

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 28.02.2024 Pronounced On : 21.05.2024 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.83 Of 2020 1.Jainambeevi 2.Sakkinam Begam 3.Mariam Beevi 4.Fathima Beevi 5.Sahul Hameed 6.Umar Habiba 7.Minor.Sirin Farhana

For Appellant: Mr.J.Barathan
Section 96

forward to execute the partnership deed dated 01.04.1977 along with S. Mappillai Meera Mohaideen and S. Mohammed Hanifa, sons of M.M.P.M Syed Mohammed. In terms of the said partnership deed, each of the five partners contributed a capital amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to a total amount of Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), which remained

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data