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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 275(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi627Karnataka500Mumbai387Ahmedabad161Bangalore147Jaipur122Cochin117Chennai103Kolkata87Hyderabad81Raipur77Chandigarh71Surat54Pune41Indore29Lucknow19Calcutta18Nagpur15Patna14Jodhpur11Cuttack11Telangana10Rajkot9Visakhapatnam7SC7Agra4Rajasthan4Amritsar4Panaji3Allahabad3Guwahati3Jabalpur2Orissa1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 44C11Section 34Addition to Income3Section 652Section 115Q2Penalty2Deduction2

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008945-008945 - 2019Supreme Court22 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 115QSection 143(2)Section 77A

68,700 shares held by its sole shareholder and holding company Genpact India Investment, Mauritius, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.11.22 15:06:13 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2 the appellant bought back

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 65
Section 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. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

C.A. No.-000821-000821 - 2000Supreme Court25 Jan 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

68,310/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellants sent their replies, inter-alia, submitting that what was imported were not goods and there could be no excise duty on services since the remittances were in Form A-2 and tax at source under the Income-Tax Act was paid in respect of the said contracts

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

275 incurred at the head office directly in relation to the Indian branches. 4. The respondent vide notice dated 21.10.1999, was asked to explain why the expenses in question should not be subjected to the ceiling specified in Section 44C of the Act, 1961, and thus be disallowed. Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page

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. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

C.A. No.-005941-005942 - 1999Supreme Court26 Feb 2003
For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore
Section 3

275] this Court has held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer of conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months. The Court pertinently observed that mere failure

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.

1. “6.2 As per clause 2.1, BCCI has appointed the producer to exclusively produce the feed for and on behalf of BCCI and the feed means – the live and continuous clean audio and visual television signal of each match as described in detail in clause 3.2 of the agreement. Clause 3.1 of the agreement deals with production services and reads