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 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,286 Mumbai2,261 Bangalore745 Chennai576 Karnataka572 Ahmedabad521 Kolkata471 Jaipur457 Hyderabad359 Chandigarh275 Indore269 Pune225 Surat138 Cochin121 Raipur94 Visakhapatnam88 Cuttack87 Rajkot76 Telangana73 Nagpur59 Calcutta59 Lucknow58 Allahabad44 Amritsar40 Panaji35 Agra33 Guwahati32 Patna31 SC27 Jodhpur24 Ranchi19 Jabalpur17 Dehradun15 Rajasthan8 Varanasi8 Orissa7 Gauhati1 Kerala1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3

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

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person

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

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person

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

96 of C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2020 passed in the suit in O.S.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul and allowing the suit in entirety. For Appellant : Mr.J.Barathan For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For T.Palani Samy For R-6 : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi JUDGMENT The Appeal Suit is directed

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

ITA/153/2019HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 70, 71, 72 and Rule 68 of the Rules which required the time-table to be enclosed along with each permanent passenger vehicle application; the Regional Transport Authority had not scrutinized the applications, before granting a permit, to ascertain how many of the 90 applications, received by the authority, had enclosed therewith the time-table. The STAT further

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

ITA/31/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would bedefeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya & Ors v Jyotsna Das AIR17 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049.231991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers theeffect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relieduponRashtriya Mahila Kosh v The Dale View 2007 IV AD (Delhi

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