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.

21 results for “section 68”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,504Mumbai1,251Bangalore553Karnataka495Chennai422Jaipur347Ahmedabad275Kolkata259Indore251Hyderabad246Pune177Chandigarh134Surat109Raipur89Cochin65Cuttack62Rajkot57Calcutta53Visakhapatnam45Telangana45Lucknow39Allahabad38Agra32Amritsar26Jodhpur24Nagpur24Ranchi23Dehradun22SC21Jabalpur12Guwahati10Patna9Rajasthan8Varanasi8Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Andhra Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

Key Topics

Section 80H8Addition to Income8Section 806Section 271(1)(c)5Section 1(5)5Section 69A5Penalty5Section 34Section 683Section 1

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

68, 69 and 69A to 69D of the Act, which deals with unexplained income, expenditure etc., it can never be said that the same would be brought under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the objective behind both the provisions are overlapping with some connection. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7689-7690 OF 2022 8 Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

C.A. No.-002540-002540 - 2007Supreme Court15 May 2007

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

3
Exemption3
Deduction3
For Respondent: P. Mohanakala
Section 68Section 6B

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are present? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of gift is not genuine is reasonable and based on relevant material and not perverse? These appeals relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The dispute in all these

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

200/-. Half of this was added to the assessment of P.R. Metrani (HUF) and other half were added in the assessment of Y.R. Metrani. The appellant being aggrieved filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by separate order disposed of the appeals relating to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. He examined the issue including certain credits

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

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000634-000634 - 2006Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 48(2)

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12/- 12 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD “CAPITAL GAINS As per assessee

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

C.A. No.-010409-010410 - 2014Supreme Court20 Nov 2024

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

200, in which this Court relied on a Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Custom, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Page 49 of 76 Finance, Government of India under No. 58/1/2002-CX dated 15.01.2002 in which it was mentioned under Clause (e) that, “(e) If items assembled or erected at site and attached by foundation to earth cannot

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JIND vs. M/S. MANGAT RAM NORATA RAM NARWANA

Appeal is allowed, impugned orders are

Crl.A. No.-000008-000008 - 2005Supreme Court05 May 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 276C(1)

68,200/- and directed for initiating penalty proceedings. Ultimately, the minimum penalty of Rs.1,24,950/- was imposed under Section

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-001964-001964 - 2008Supreme Court18 Jan 2016
Section 256(2)Section 35Section 40A(2)

68 ITR 200] and K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [247 ITR 178]. 8. The legal position in this regard may be summed up by reiterating that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and it is beyond the power of the High Court in the exercise of its reference jurisdiction to reconsider such

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

C.A. No.-005173-005173 - 2007Supreme Court13 Nov 2007
For Respondent: K. Ravindranathan Nair
Section 28Section 80H

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

C.A. No.-006703-006710 - 2009Supreme Court13 Apr 2018

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut

SANDVIK ASIA LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

C.A. No.-001337-001340 - 2005Supreme Court27 Jan 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors
Section 214Section 264

68,88,220/- and tax thereon at Rs.1,47,88,521. The appellant on 30.04.1986 received a refund of Rs.42,38,260/- and became entitled to receive interest on the refund and requested respondent No.2 to grant interest on refund under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act for the period from 01.4.1977 to 31.03.1986. Assessment Year

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

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

200 (Mad); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inchcape India (P) Ltd: (2005) 273 ITR 92 (Delhi); Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Ors. v. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd.: (1998) 231 ITR 148 (SC) and E.P.W. Da Costa (supra). 8.2. Having thus taken note of the rival submissions, the High Court proceeded to analyse Section

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 and chapter notes in the First Schedule of the Act, 1975, it is found that they are identical to their counterparts in the HSN. As no explicit statutory deviation has been shown to exist, there can be no doubt that the Explanatory Notes can be considered as binding guidance to resolve the classification dispute before us. ii. Applicability

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS vs. INDIAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS

C.A. No.-008308-008308 - 1995Supreme Court03 May 2000
For Respondent: INDIA ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD
Section 19Section 2(15)

68 of the Central Excise Tariff and, accordingly, charged additional duty at the rate of 8 per cent ad valorem. The respondent filed a refund claim. It state mat the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator. It provided the break up of the price of the said set, namely, Rs. 5,95,540 for the diesel

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 45. Opinions of experts. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger

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

200/- being expenses incurred on account of fees paid to Uday Chande is not admissible as it cannot be said to be related to sale of property. Accordingly, the same is not allowed. 6. Subject to the above remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under : Property Income : Rs As per statement 64,664 Long term Capital

M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

C.A. No.-005941-005942 - 1999Supreme Court26 Feb 2003
For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore
Section 3

200 workload units in 2000 AD (as had also been suggested by the RRC) is defined as the optimum value of the workload index. Besides workload the accessibility of activity centres/remote points from its respective zonal/divisional headquarters is the other important criterion. The norm in this case is defined as an average travelling time (between the zonal and the divisional

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. G. DAYARAM & CO

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-002616-002616 - 2003Supreme Court31 Mar 2003
Section 1Section 1(5)

200.”; “Worcester defines a shop as a place, building, or room in which things are sold; a store. Salomon v. Pioneer Co-operative Co., 21 Fla. 374, 384, 58 Am.Rep. 667.”; “Webster defines the word shop as follows: (1) A building in which goods, wares, drugs, etc. are sold at retail; (2) a building in which mechanics work, and where