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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 202clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi586Karnataka494Mumbai412Bangalore128Ahmedabad119Chennai114Jaipur99Kolkata77Rajkot60Hyderabad48Chandigarh36Nagpur31Surat30Indore29Raipur28Pune28Lucknow19Cuttack17Calcutta16Telangana15Guwahati12Amritsar10Ranchi9Visakhapatnam8Jodhpur7SC5Rajasthan4Agra3Patna3Dehradun3Cochin2Allahabad2Orissa1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 44C11Exemption3Section 5A(4)2

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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

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

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

202 dated 5.7.1976 read thus: “Ceiling expenses in respect of head office case of non- residents-New section 44C. 25.1 Non-residents carrying on any business or profession in India through their branches are entitled to a deduction, in computing the taxable profits, in respect of general administrative expenses incurred by the foreign head offices

M/S. CASTROL INDIA LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-I

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-006289-006290 - 1999Supreme Court25 Feb 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I
Section 5A(4)

68. Thereafter Notification no.120/84 covered the field and the same notification continued upto 1994. In between the Tariff Act was introduced which introduced a new tariff in Chapter 27 w.e.f. 1.3.1986 under the Tariff Act. Section 5A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the ’Act’) all along held the field. Originally Item No.11B was a part

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

202.  It may   be   noted   that   this   case   was   dealt   with   by   five learned Judges of this Court resulting in two different opinions; one by the then Chief Justice of India, S.R. Das for the majority, and Justice B.P. Sinha (as His Lordship   then   was)   rendering   minority   view.     The question before this Court was whether the sale of goods made