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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi731Mumbai542Karnataka470Bangalore193Chennai192Jaipur151Ahmedabad148Kolkata127Cochin72Hyderabad58Calcutta53Surat52Indore51Chandigarh49Raipur44Telangana37Pune33Visakhapatnam32Nagpur31Lucknow24Amritsar19Rajkot16Cuttack13SC12Allahabad12Jodhpur10Patna9Rajasthan7Agra7Dehradun5Orissa3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1Guwahati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 2546Section 2635Section 2645Section 2503Section 92C2Section 1382Addition to Income2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. HARISH JAIN

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed

ITA/81/2023HC Rajasthan03 Mar 2025

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 21.07.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri Crl.R.C.(Md)No.81 Of 2023 & Crl.M.P.(Md)No.1047 Of 2023 Prabavathi

For Respondent: Mr.P.Muthusamy
Section 138

Section 138 satisfied, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused, sentenced her to nine months simple imprisonment, directed payment of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation within one month and in default, imposed a further two months simple imprisonment. Judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi:- 6.In Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2017, the appellant raised grounds

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Bench:

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S K.S. CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

ITA/63/2024HC Rajasthan03 Jul 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264Section 2ASection 92C

138,83,40,893/-. It also taxed the revenue of the assessee generated through BREW operator agreements as well as royalty on the sale of CDMA handsets. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)7 which confirmed the view taken by the AO in terms of its order dated

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

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

68. AIR 1966 SC 1637 69. (1973) 1 SCR 515 70. (2013) SCC OnLine 622 (Bom HC DB) 71. (2003) ECR 783 (SC) 72. (2015) 4 SCC 400 73. AIR 1996 SC 188). 74. (1975) Supp SCC 1 75. AIR 1963 SC 1742 76. Criminal Appeal No. 75/69 decided

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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