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.

15 results for “section 68”+ Section 254clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,191Delhi1,042Karnataka451Surat376Bangalore285Chennai195Ahmedabad185Jaipur180Kolkata158Chandigarh111Cochin101Pune100Hyderabad81Raipur72Indore69Calcutta51Rajkot39Lucknow32Nagpur22Jodhpur15Guwahati15SC15Agra12Jabalpur11Cuttack10Telangana10Amritsar10Visakhapatnam8Dehradun7Varanasi5Rajasthan5Allahabad4Panaji3Patna3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Uttarakhand1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 144C6Section 105Section 685Section 36(1)(vii)4Section 271(1)(c)4Addition to Income4Section 1483Section 2143Depreciation3Penalty

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006110-006110 - 2009Supreme Court24 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 143(2)Section 24(1)Section 260ASection 272(1)(c)Section 68

254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, the amount on which additional income­tax is payable under clause (a) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the additional income­tax shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and,­ (i) in   a   case   where   the   additional   income­tax   is increased, the Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

3
Section 37(1)2
Exemption2
C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

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

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

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. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.” It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

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

254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264, the amount of tax payable under this Act is reduced or increased, as the case may be, the amount of tax credit allowed under this section shall also be increased or reduced accordingly.” 9 5. As per provisions of Section 115JA, a company

VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003265-003266 - 2003Supreme Court06 Dec 2010
Section 148Section 260

254(2) of the Act. 12. The assessee preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act. As already stated, the High Court, vide judgment dated 21st December 2001, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that: “To us it appears that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax as also

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

254 (hereafter “Lok Shikshana Trust”) 10 of transactions. It predicates a motive which pervades the whole series of transactions effected by the person in the course of his activity….” The court also rejected the submission that the “profit” referred to meant private profit. It held that the term had to be interpreted without qualification. 12. One of the judges

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

68." The Karnataka High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the following view : \005\005The Tribunal holds that looking to the scheme it appears that the presumption of Sub-section (4A) is only for the limited purpose of passing an order under Sub- section (5). According to the Tribunal the assessing authority was wrong in drawing

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)

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This

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

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

Section 9(1)(i), the capital asset must be situated in India. It also distinguished legitimate tax planning from tax evasion, aligned with Azadi Bachao Andolan, and upheld Vodafone’s transaction. This Court reiterated that TRCs cannot be pierced except in cases involving fraud, sham transactions, etc., and reaffirmed the validity of the Mauritius Route and its inextricable link

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and to the facts of that case. It was noted that the borrowed 68 amount in question was not utilized by the assessee in its own business but was advanced as interest free loan to its sister concern. This Court opined that this factum was not really relevant. What was relevant

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

C.A. No.-003795-003795 - 2014Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 10

254. 24 Thus, education i.e., imparting formal scholastic learning, is what the IT Act provides for under the head of “charitable” purposes, under Section 2 (15). 34. The issues which require resolution in these cases are firstly, the correct meaning of the term ‘solely’ in Section 10 (23C) (vi) which exempts income of “university or other educational institution

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

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

M/S. H.P.L. CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

C.A. No.-001836-001836 - 2001Supreme Court20 Apr 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh
Section 11ASection 35

section or Chapter notes. Tribunal has totally failed to consider the said interpretation of Rule 1. The Tribunal has further held that since the starting raw materials were not classifiable under Chapter 25, the residue in question cannot be a product covered by Chapter 25. This finding is based on wrong assumptions and reasoning. There is no such requirement