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.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi624Mumbai421Bangalore266Jaipur116Ahmedabad104Hyderabad103Chennai69Kolkata60Pune40Nagpur36Indore36Karnataka31Allahabad31Jodhpur29Ranchi29Chandigarh24Lucknow23Agra23Visakhapatnam21Cochin17Amritsar15Rajkot14Guwahati13Surat13Dehradun12Raipur5SC4Varanasi2Patna1Panaji1Telangana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Jabalpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)11Section 139(1)3Section 1583Section 2762Section 143(3)2Section 115J2Section 922Addition to Income2

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

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

C.A. No.-001198-001198 - 2010Supreme Court02 Feb 2010
Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 260ASection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

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

234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that once the Assessing Officer has exercised option to proceed under Section 143(3) of the Act by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act even if adjustments that may be made by the Assessing Officer are in order, Assessing Officer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J

234A, B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no dispute in regard to eligibility of the assessee for set off of tax paid under Section 115JA. The dispute is only in regard to priority of adjustment for the MAT credit. 4. To answer