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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 153(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,754Mumbai1,260Karnataka490Bangalore372Chennai372Jaipur323Chandigarh222Hyderabad217Ahmedabad164Kolkata118Cochin110Indore103Pune88Surat66Guwahati65Raipur56Amritsar47Telangana40Nagpur40Lucknow34Rajkot30Ranchi28Allahabad28Dehradun22Patna22SC21Calcutta19Visakhapatnam17Jodhpur17Panaji13Agra12Cuttack12Rajasthan8Orissa4Varanasi2Jabalpur1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 2546Section 1535Section 2635Section 2645Section 2503Section 92C2Section 42Limitation/Time-bar2Addition 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

Section 153(1) prescribes the limitation period for passing an order of assessment. The maximum time limit, as applicable during the relevant period, was two years from the end of the assessment year. Similarly, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68

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 153
Section 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

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

1) of the settlement. There was no reference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the statement of objects and reasons nor in the non-obstante clause in Section 3 of the 1976 Act. The statement of objects and reasons disclosed that the purpose of the 1976 Act was to undo

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights