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.

10 results for “section 68”+ Section 90(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,040 Mumbai2,687 Bangalore821 Chennai690 Kolkata660 Ahmedabad624 Karnataka594 Jaipur489 Hyderabad476 Indore306 Cochin290 Pune275 Chandigarh263 Surat206 Raipur172 Visakhapatnam110 Cuttack93 Lucknow83 Rajkot75 Nagpur74 Telangana72 Calcutta63 Amritsar57 Ranchi54 SC40 Allahabad38 Jodhpur36 Guwahati34 Agra33 Jabalpur19 Patna18 Dehradun13 Rajasthan10 Panaji9 Varanasi9 Orissa6 Kerala1 Andhra Pradesh1 Gauhati1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 2546 Section 2635 Section 2645 Section 2503 Addition to Income3 Section 92C2 Section 1382 Section 172

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

ITA/153/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

2. Application, total 11 in number, not received in the application proforma under Rule 64 of Rules:- Opposite party 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 41, 42, 63, 66. 3. Number of the time tables annexed with the applications as per Sections 71, 72 & 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 63 of the Rules:- Time table

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL HUF

ITA/4/2021HC Rajasthan16 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 120BSection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)Section 17Section 26Section 42

90 days as otherwise there will be no attachment. Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:05:28 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 4/2021 and 5/2021 Page 12 of 31 d) The latest amendment in PMLA has fixed the limitation of 365 days as limitation of period for investigation. The said amendment

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

68,740/- The other additions made in the assessment order under head Royalty on Handsets of Rs.78,53,40,000/- and Royalty on Infrastructure Equipments of Rs 39,04,76,313/- are also being reduced for giving statistical effect to the order of hon'ble ITAT. Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,32,88,790/- Appeal effect given as above

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 on 10-9-1969 77. (1965) 2

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

90,000/- and agricultural income only Rs.90,000/-. The allegation that the complainant lent Rs.30,00,000/- on 03.08.2003 is inherently unbelievable and is duly rebutted by the accused. In assessment year 2012–2013 (Ex.D1), the complainant’s total aggregate income was only Rs. 2,68,000/-. In assessment year 2013–2014 (Ex.D2) it was only

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

2)(a) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter “IT Rules 2021”), as whenever any complaint is made by any user or victim, the acknowledgment is issued to said user/victim, within 24 hours and the complaint is disposed of within 15 days from the date of its receipt. He further submits that

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. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

ITA/31/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

2), p. 559 para 1040).” 46. An upshot of the aforementioned precedents indicates that normally, in the domain of private employment governed exclusively by a contract, the consequence of wrongful termination is determined by the character of the agreement itself. Such agreements, founded on mutual volition, fall outside the scope of judicial enforcement. 47. Consequently, even if the termination