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.

87 results for “section 68”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,939Mumbai5,122Bangalore1,706Chennai1,284Ahmedabad1,153Kolkata1,113Jaipur1,017Hyderabad825Karnataka704Pune613Surat542Indore535Chandigarh478Cochin331Raipur289Rajkot240Visakhapatnam233Cuttack167Agra159Lucknow153Amritsar147Nagpur145Telangana122Ranchi99Guwahati87SC87Jabalpur79Calcutta74Allahabad72Patna58Jodhpur52Dehradun51Panaji41Varanasi23Rajasthan14Orissa10Kerala9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Penalty25Addition to Income22Section 44C11Exemption10Limitation/Time-bar10Section 11A9Section 80P9Section 658Section 35B8Section 80H

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

8
Section 117
Section 1437
C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022
Supreme Court
24 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

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 and the same would not be applicable to the present case. 15. Section 15(1) provides for the rate of duty and tariff valuation applicable to any \023imported goods\024. The term \023imported goods\024 is defined in Section 2(25

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

C.A. No.-002463-002463 - 2019Supreme Court05 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. 12. In the present case, the A.O. had conducted detailed enquiry which revealed that : i. There was no material on record to prove, or even remotely suggest, that the share application money was received from independent legal entities. The survey revealed that some of the investor companies were non-existent, and had no office

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) vs. COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI

C.A. No.-003532-003536 - 2020Supreme Court01 Nov 2022

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

68) and Section 65(86b) of the Finance Act 1994, there was no warrant to allow the invocation of the extended period of limitation and to direct the determination of the penalty following the re-quantification of the demand. The extended period 6 (1989) 4 SCC 275 CA 3532-36/2020 16 of limitation would clearly not stand attracted

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

68 is ‘Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption’. This section, as it stood at the relevant point of time, provided that the importer of any warehoused goods may clear those goods from the warehouse for home consumption if – (a) a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods has been presented in the prescribed form

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

68 Section 25(2) of the GMB Act 69 Section 32 r/w Sections 37-30 of the GMB Act 40 utilization

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

Section 66 B accompanied by the definition of service under Section 65B (44) and the legislature further providing for the negative 80 list of services which stood excluded from the levy of service tax in Section 66 D, the question would only be whether there is any service and whether it is excluded under Section

M/S KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

The appeal is dismissed with costs

C.A. No.-005832-005832 - 2007Supreme Court12 Dec 2007
For Respondent: Commr. of Central Excise,Thiruvananthapuram
Section 65Section 66Section 68

25. In that case Section 3(3) of the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 was challenged by transport operators. The Act provided for the levy of the tax on passengers and goods plying in the State of Haryana. According to the transport operators, the State could not levy tax on passengers and goods carried by vehicles plying

S. RAJENDRAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

The appeals are dismissed with

C.A. No.-007140 - 2022Supreme Court24 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 132Section 24Section 24(1)

25 benami property, supported by a distinct appellate hierarchy. Exclusive jurisdiction over such determinations is conferred upon authorities constituted under the Benami Act. The IBC neither displaces this statutory mechanism nor empowers the NCLT to reopen findings rendered thereunder. 20.4 This Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta18 has held that when proceedings are to be initiated

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

25. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act expressly provides that if a proper officer issues an order under Act, he shall also issue an order under the SGST Act or the UGST Act as authorised by the said enactments under intimation of the jurisdictional officer. 26. In conformity with the scheme

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.A. No.-007189-007189 - 2005Supreme Court04 Aug 2015
Section 12Section 18Section 3ASection 68Section 9A

68 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt from duty vide (i) 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Notifications No. 30/97 Cus dated

M.J.EXPORTS LTD. vs. CUSTOMS,EX.&GOLD(CONTROL)APP.TRI

C.A. No.-004105-004105 - 1991Supreme Court14 May 1992
For Respondent: CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATETRIBUNAL, BOMBAY
Section 113Section 114Section 25

Sections 2(33), 25, 45, 51, 53, 54, 59, 68, 69, 74, 113(d) & 114. Import-Export Policy 1988-91: Paras

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA vs. M/S. ESSAR OIL LTD.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-004299-004305 - 2003Supreme Court07 Oct 2004
For Respondent: M/s Essar Oil Limited & Ors
Section 59(2)

68 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. As regards Issue no.3, Commissioner held that charge of evasion of duty by mala fide intent, wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts was clearly established. CEGAT held that there was no willful mis-declaration, no evasion or short levy

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

25%. The Commissioner of Customs considered the averments of the department and the reply submitted by the Company and by Mr. Gupta. According to the Commissioner, an agreement was entered into between Zimmer and the Company and the said fact was admitted by the Company. In consideration of supply of FEEP, an amount of BM 34,00,000/- equivalent

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)

25 dealers had recorded their statements and only one of those clearly incriminated the assessee, which had also been later retracted, the total evidence available may not be adequate to quantify evasion by the assessee for a whole year; 41 IV. That an analysis of the provisions of the Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891 showed that the Adjudicating Authority

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

C.A. No.-004711-004712 - 2011Supreme Court22 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

Section 126M

68 came into force on the 1st September 1968. 12 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued, granted, adjudged, imposed or ordered, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 29th day of June

M/S. MUSTAN TAHERBHAI vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and

C.A. No.-003788-003788 - 2003Supreme Court28 Feb 2011
Section 129Section 130E

25) of the Act. Moreover, there was no “taxable event” as there was no import in the instant case, and the appellant being an auction-purchaser cannot be likened to an importer under the Act. Relying on the decision of this Court in Baijnath Melaram (supra), learned counsel urged that no customs duty can be levied on Indian built ships

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)

25 of 38 date, does the debt get the character of a preferential debt. After elaborate discussion, D.A. Desai, J. has held that the debt becomes ‘due’ under the applicable taxing statute on the date when the sale, that is, the taxing event takes place. Tax may become ‘due’ but may be payable in future in terms of the statute

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-010815-010819 - 2014Supreme Court06 May 2025

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

68,593/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012 Category III Business Auxiliary Services (marketing and distributing): Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 Category II Management, maintenance or repair services : Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the activity of identifying new prospective customers