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 256(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi728Mumbai646Karnataka442Jaipur206Ahmedabad188Kolkata145Bangalore128Chennai98Cochin91Surat72Hyderabad51Raipur44Nagpur44Indore40Chandigarh38Lucknow29Cuttack28Pune26Visakhapatnam25Rajkot24Amritsar21Calcutta20Agra19Telangana14Allahabad9Dehradun9Jodhpur8Guwahati8Varanasi7SC5Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh1Patna1Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1Orissa1Kerala1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 806Section 256(2)3Deduction3Section 652Addition to Income2

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 18, the tax paid on interest under the Interest Tax Act can be deducted under the Income-Tax Act. If the 75 interchange fee, has been regarded as interest, then, undoubtedly, it would have been brought to tax under the Interest Tax Act. The respondent has no case that tax has been paid on the interchange fee treating

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

C.A. No.-005066-005066 - 1996Supreme Court24 Mar 1999
For Respondent: VENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P) LTD
Section 256(2)Section 32ASection 32A(2)Section 43ASection 80J(4)(iii)Section 88J

256(2) of the Act following the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Deejay Hatcheries (211 I.T.R. 652) wherein it was held that the business of hatchery cannot be termed as an industrial undertaking producing articles or things. That is how both sets of appeals are before us. Respondents in these civil appeals and the appellant

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

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement

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)

256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Page 2 JUDGMENT 2 2. At the outset, the questions of law on which the High court had rendered

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

2 SCR 253 [hereinafter referred as  ‘Hansraj   Gordhandas   Case’  for   brevity],   wherein this Court was called upon to interpret an exemption notification   issued   under   the   Central   Excise   Act.     It would   be   relevant   to   understand   the   factual   context which gave rise to the aforesaid case before the Court. The appellant was sole proprietor who used to procure 50 cotton from