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.

88 results for “section 68”+ Section 13(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,175Mumbai5,121Bangalore1,848Kolkata1,343Chennai1,162Ahmedabad1,106Jaipur1,079Hyderabad957Karnataka725Pune680Chandigarh592Surat517Indore367Raipur285Cochin238Visakhapatnam229Rajkot223Lucknow162Nagpur160Agra154Amritsar144Cuttack136Guwahati119Telangana118SC88Jabalpur77Calcutta75Ranchi67Jodhpur62Allahabad58Patna58Dehradun42Panaji40Varanasi23Orissa13Rajasthan12Kerala11Gauhati3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Penalty27Addition to Income22Section 143(2)20Section 80H14Section 11A13Section 13212Section 44C11Deduction11Section 80P9Section 276C

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-000061-000061 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jan 2014

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 245(2)Section 276Section 279(1)

68,676/- and demand of Rs.96,98,801/-, inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/- was raised after adjusting pre-paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/-. The Department then issued show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996. Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 3.10.1996. 7. A-3 also failed

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

9
Limitation/Time-bar9
Section 688

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

b). Thereafter, in terms of clause (c), due credit to the amount of tax paid and any relief that is allowable is to be given and the net amount payable or to be refunded, is to be computed. The intimation to be generated under clause (d) is on the basis of such exercise and if any refund

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

SLP(C) No.-006092 - 2025Supreme Court14 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 6Section 6(2)(a)Section 6(2)(b)Section 67(2)Section 70Section 73

1, as complained of, amounts to an “initiation of proceedings” in respect of the “same subject matter” for the purposes of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. I. Whether issuance of summons can be regarded as “initiation of proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act? 21. One of the principal

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-007240-007248 - 2009Supreme Court19 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 35L(1)(b)

13,70,618 under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest, penalty, etc.  53. After   the   receipt   of   the   replies   from   the   assessee,   the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, held an enquiry and passed an Order­in­Original No. 10/2006 dated 29.05.2006, in and by which, he (i) confirmed the demand of duty

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-001260-001261 - 1997Supreme Court16 Feb 2004
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(a)Section 276Section 276C

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-001977-001977 - 2025Supreme Court07 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 143(1)Section 276C

13. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must

M/S BISCO LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part in the above terms

C.A. No.-004663-004663 - 2009Supreme Court20 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 111Section 112Section 130ESection 28ASection 71

13 appellant outside the approved warehouse were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act. As the goods were within the factory premises but outside the bonded warehouse, a lenient view was taken; the goods were permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees two lakhs only). The option for redeeming the goods

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD

C.A. No.-002018-002019 - 2002Supreme Court01 Feb 2008
For Respondent: Biecco Lawrie Ltd
Section 130Section 49

68. According to him, in terms of Section 15(1)(b), the \023cause\024 is \023the physical removal of goods from warehouse\024 and the \023effect\024 is the payment of duty for such removal of goods and not otherwise. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent controverts the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

C.A. No.-008590-008590 - 2010Supreme Court19 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 264Section 32(2)Section 617

68,717/- Writ Petition No.2267 of 1992 was filed by the assessee in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.01.1993 allowed the writ petition quashing the levy of additional tax under Section 143(1-A). The Revenue aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge filed a Special

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications given

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

13. Kingdom of Netherlands 14. Republic of Singapore 15. Kingdom of Sweden 16. India-Taipei Association in Taipei (Taiwan) 17. United States of America 18. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 41. Insofar as is material, each of these DTAAs is based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, and are therefore substantially similar

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section 13

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

b) of sub-section (1).” 14.Section 115BBE of the Act deals with levy of tax on income as mentioned in Section 68, 69, and 69A to 69D of the Act. If a case comes under Section 115BBE sub-section (1) of the Act, the rate of income tax shall be at 60%. 15.The object of this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

13 SCC 1 40 2018 SccOnline Delhi 7536 41 The High Court had relied upon the ratio in Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 3 SCC 323 , which ruled that the true character of the corporation in that case i.e., the Maharashtra Development Corporation was to act as an architectural agent for the development

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008945-008945 - 2019Supreme Court22 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 115QSection 143(2)Section 77A

1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No.686 of 2017. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are as under: (a) Out of opening share capital of 25,68,700 shares held

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

b) and (c) of Section 271(1) have been satisfied would be reached only after the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 61. It may be true that the legislature has attempted to shift the burden from revenue to the assessee. It may further be correct that different views have been

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

b), the signatories were entitled to transfer, either wholly or partly, their allotment of hours of work per week to any one or more of the signatories. Under this clause, the assessee had purchased ‘loom hours’ from four other mills for the aggregate sum of Rs. 2,03,255.00 during the previous year relevant to the assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

INDUSTRIAL DEV.BANK OF INDIA THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26th

C.A. No.-002568-002568 - 2013Supreme Court18 Aug 2023

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142Section 447Section 456Section 468Section 47Section 529ASection 59(1)Section 72Section 72(2)

13. Both benches of the High Court, with due respect, gave to the provision a very wide and varied interpretation and that too on literality and grammaticals seemingly overlooking the legal philosophy which permeates the provision, the same Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2013 Page 24 of 38 being that the debts due and payable, so as to claim priority