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.

19 results for “section 68”+ Section 130clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,016Mumbai864Karnataka475Bangalore232Chennai225Jaipur198Ahmedabad186Kolkata151Hyderabad114Chandigarh110Cochin97Agra75Indore75Raipur61Surat58Calcutta56Pune52Lucknow48Telangana42Visakhapatnam35Rajkot33Allahabad29Nagpur27Ranchi27Cuttack25SC19Guwahati19Jodhpur14Amritsar14Patna13Dehradun10Rajasthan7Jabalpur6Varanasi5Orissa4Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)5Addition to Income5Section 36(1)(vii)4Section 654Section 1304Penalty4Section 37(1)2Section 112Section 1482Section 143(3)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

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

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

68 of the Finance Act, 1994 demanding the service tax along with interest under Section 75 and for imposition of penalty under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2007 confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.10,42,71,437/- and ordered

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

2
Exemption2
C.A. No.-002463-002463 - 2019
Supreme Court
05 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the Act, and that the onus on the Assessee Company stood fully discharged. 3.7. The AO had issued summons to the representatives of the investor companies. Despite the summons having been served, nobody appeared on behalf of any of the investor companies. The Department only received submissions 5 through dak, which created a doubt about

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

130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, \023the Act\024) against the judgment and final order dated 9th of August, 2001 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, ERB, Cal. in Appeal Nos. C/R-84 & 116/1999. 2. Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as \021respondent\022) imported 5273.156 M.T. of Superior Kerosene Oil (hereinafter referred

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70, as prescribed in the Rules. 61. I have already explained the scope of Sections 67 to 70. The contention

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

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

C.A. No.-006261-006262 - 2019Supreme Court13 Aug 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143ASection 153Section 153ASection 158BSection 292BSection 69

130/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153(D) of 1961 Act. Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1961 Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29

M/S.GRASIM INDS.LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY

C.A. No.-001951-001951 - 1998Supreme Court04 Apr 2002
For Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Section 130

Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the ’Act’), the only question that falls for adjudication is whether Karbate Tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with Phenolic resin which are parts of Heat exchangers are classifiable under Tariff Item: sub-heading 6815.10 in First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short ’Tariff

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)

130 ITR 95, the ITAT held that since Assessee had debited the said sum of Rs. 81,68,516/- to the P&L Account it was entitled to claim deduction as a write off under Section

M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS(APPEALS)

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

C.A. No.-002288-002288 - 1986Supreme Court14 Dec 1994
For Respondent: THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMES (APPEALS), CUSTOMS HOUSE, MADRAS
Section 130

130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 is directed against the order No.234/1986-B.2 rendered on 10th April, 1986 by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi -- "the CEGAT", in CD(SB)(T) Appeal No. 1933 of 1983 (B-2). 2. Whether there was justification for the CEGAT to classify the article "Granite Press Roll" under Import Tariff Item

M/S. UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CUSTOMS &CENTRAL EXCISE,RAJKOT

C.A. No.-002338-002338 - 2001Supreme Court08 Feb 2005
For Respondent: Commnr. of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot
Section 130

Section 130(E) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") against the final Order No.C-I/II/WZB/2000 dated 2.1.2001 in Appeal No.C/533-V/99/Bom passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal reversed the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

C.A. No.-004475-004475 - 2025Supreme Court28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

130 of the Act was raised, which was decided in favour of the Department. However, the appellants have not pressed this issue before us and as such we make no observation about the decision, and we confine our consideration only on the issue as to whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the imported oil is not Base

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR vs. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES

C.A. No.-001355-001355 - 1994Supreme Court17 Sept 1991
For Respondent: RAJASTHAN STATE CHEMICAL WORKS DEEDWANA, RAJASTHAN ETC. ETC
Section 2

Section 2(f), Item No. 68 of First Schedule--Notification No. 179/77, CE dated 18.6.1977--Exemption in relation to manufacture of which no process is carried on with the aid of power--Assessees using power to lift raw materials--Whether fails within ’process of manufacture’-- Exemption--Whether available. Words & Phrases: "Manufacturing Process"- Meaning of. HEADNOTE: By way of notification

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

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. CHHATA SUGAR CO. LTD

C.A. No.-007488-007492 - 2001Supreme Court27 Feb 2004
For Respondent: M/s Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd
Section 548

130-132) The aforementioned decisions have been referred to in The State of South Australia and Another Vs. the Commonwealth and Another, [(1942) 65 C.L.R. 373]. Excise duty is considered to be an indirect tax. The Supreme Court of United States in Hylton, Plaintiff in Error vs. The United States [US SCR 1 Law. Ed. Dallas 169] observed : "The term

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

R.P.(C) No.-000400 - 2021Supreme Court07 Nov 2024

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

68 of 161 he was a Customs officer under the Customs Act. In addition, that he was entrusted with the functions of the proper officer under Section 6 of the Customs Act. The Additional Director General of the DRI can be considered to be a Customs officer only if he is shown to have been appointed as Customs officer

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

C.A. No.-005531 - 2025Supreme Court06 Jan 2026

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

Section 46

section notes. It is only when (i) no clear pathway exists to determine classification under a chapter heading, i.e., absence of a definition or criterion, and (ii) there is ambiguity regarding the meaning and scope of a tariff item, that the possibility of invoking the common parlance test arises. 57. In Chemical and Fibres of India

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

130. Subsidiaries are often created for tax or regulatory reasons. They at times come into existence from mergers and acquisitions. As group members, subsidiaries work together to make the same or complementary goods and services and hence they are subject to the same market supply and demand conditions. They are financially interlinked. One such linkage is the intra-group loans

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

C.A. No.-009525 - 2018Supreme Court03 May 2023

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

Section 11

section 97 (1) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. It also does not contain the dosage to be used or that the dosage as directed by the physician. That it does not contain any that it can cure any particular disease like alopecia (loss of hair) or insomnia (sleep loss). Further he also held that previous orders passed

GVK INDS. LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007796-007796 - 1997Supreme Court01 Mar 2011

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (1961) was unconstitutional on the ground that it constitutes a law with respect to objects or provocations outside the territory of India, thereby being ultra- vires the powers granted by Clause (1) of Article 245. Interpreting Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 245, Chief Justice Pathak (as he then