Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 153clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,820 Mumbai1,306 Karnataka490 Bangalore410 Chennai395 Jaipur334 Hyderabad230 Chandigarh222 Ahmedabad165 Kolkata131 Cochin110 Indore107 Pune94 Surat69 Guwahati65 Raipur56 Amritsar47 Nagpur45 Lucknow41 Telangana40 Rajkot38 Allahabad28 Patna25 Ranchi24 Dehradun22 SC21 Visakhapatnam19 Calcutta19 Jodhpur18 Agra13 Panaji13 Cuttack12 Rajasthan8 Orissa4 Varanasi2 Punjab & Haryana1 Andhra Pradesh1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Jabalpur1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 2546 Section 1535 Section 2635 Section 2645 Section 2503 Section 92C2 Section 42 Limitation/Time-bar2 Addition to Income2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

ITA/68/2024HC Rajasthan08 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 153Section 153(7)Section 4

68 of 2024 provisions, including sub-section (7) of Section 153 brought in by the Finance Act, 2016, are inapplicable

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 250

Section 254

Section 263

Section 264

Section 2A

Section 92C

Section 153(2A) would have to be computed accordingly. 10. Our attention was drawn to the order of 12 March 2015 which reads thus:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

ITA/153/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

153 of 2019, are the respondents in WPMS Nos. 96 and 103 of 2009, wherein the legality of Agenda No. 13 of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority dated 27.12.2008, granting permits to several persons without survey of the route, was put in issue. By the common order dated 14.08.2018, the validity of which is now under challenge before

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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