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.

63 results for “section 68”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,738Mumbai3,872Bangalore1,378Chennai991Ahmedabad963Kolkata915Jaipur843Karnataka680Hyderabad673Pune449Indore446Chandigarh420Surat327Cochin264Raipur208Visakhapatnam189Rajkot163Nagpur147Lucknow128Agra125Telangana105Cuttack104Guwahati100Amritsar98Ranchi76Jabalpur75Calcutta67SC63Jodhpur60Allahabad56Patna39Panaji33Dehradun29Varanasi28Rajasthan11Orissa10Kerala7Uttarakhand3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Penalty19Addition to Income17Section 44C11Section 658Section 35B8Exemption8Limitation/Time-bar8Section 11A7Section 1327Section 17(5)(d)

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/- under Section 36(1)(vii) being Provision for NPA in terms of RBI Directions 1998 on the ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

C.A. No.-003952-003955 - 2002Supreme Court08 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s. Core Health Care Ltd
Section 260A

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

7
Section 686
Section 36
Section 28
Section 36(1)(iii)
Section 43(1)

68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions. For the assessment year under consideration assessee claimed deduction towards expenses aggregating to Rs.2,12,05,459/- which included interest on borrowings of Rs.1,56,76,000/-. During the assessment year under consideration assessee had installed new machinery. The A.O. vide assessment order dated

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

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 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

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. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the CESTAT in Appeal No. ST/136/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, from the impugned judgment and order passed by the CESTAT, it appears that the CESTAT has considered only one issue namely whether for the period pre 01.05.2006 – the Finance Bill, 2006 whether

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, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty. 30. While Section 28 provides for recovery of duties not levied or short levied, Section 28AA deals with interest on delayed payment of duty. On the other hand, Section

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

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

C.A. No.-002540-002540 - 2007Supreme Court15 May 2007
For Respondent: P. Mohanakala
Section 68Section 6B

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are present? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of gift is not genuine is reasonable and based on relevant material and not perverse? These appeals relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The dispute in all these

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

68 or rules made thereunder, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest at such rate not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III

C.A. No.-010409-010410 - 2014Supreme Court20 Nov 2024

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

36) of the General Clause Act. If we consider the nature of annexation of the tower to the earth, it is seen that the annexation is not for permanent annexation to the land or the building as the tower can be removed or relocated without causing damage to it. It is also to be noted that the attachment

LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

C.A. No.-000856-000857 - 2011Supreme Court10 Nov 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 11A(1)Section 35L(1)(b)

36 of 57 48. We should now look into a few landmark judgments to help us understand when an article would be considered as movable or immovable for the purpose of levying excise duty under the Act, 1944. 49. This Court in Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, U.P. reported in (1995) 2 SCC 372 dealt

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)

36(3)(e) further recognises that property “subject to determination by a court or authority” forms part of the estate only to the extent of such determination. Once an authority under Benami Act 13 declares the debtor a benamidar, beneficial ownership stands negated and insolvency cannot convert such property into distributable assets for creditors. 15.6 Confiscation under the Benami

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

68. Neither section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated October 5, 2018, therefore, apply to the fact-situation presented by the two petitions before us as they do not operate and are not intended to operate in a situation where the "intelligence based enforcement action" has repercussion or involvement of taxpayers beyond

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)

68 of the Customs Act stand fulfilled and the imported goods are cleared for home consumption. In the context of the present case, we must hold that the debt had become ‘due’ in terms of the two adjudication orders dated 15th September 2000 and 10th October 2000 and ‘payable’ immediately. Thus, the customs duty became ‘due and payable’ prior

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

36 1996. All the trade bodies60 as well Bureau of Indian Standards are members of its governing council. 54. It was submitted that the revenue had granted exemptions to the assessee society under Section 12A and Section 10(23C)(iv) while issuing various certificates from time to time (from AY 1996-1997 to 2007-2008); therefore

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. Special duties of customs. – (1) In the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, or in that Schedule, as amended from time to time, there shall be levied and collected as a special duty of customs, an amount equal to two per cent of the value of the goods as determined in accordance

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 22, 23, 24(1), 174(1)-Appendix 6-List 2, Item 36

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

36,000/- for the assessment year http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10 1982-83. The orders of the Assessing Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) are based on the presumptions in terms of Section 132 (4A) of the Act. It was held that presumptions under Section 132 (4A) were not confined

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS

C.A. No.-011744-011745 - 2025Supreme Court10 Nov 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Section 35LSection 65(105)(v)Section 65(88)Section 69Section 70Section 73(1)Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

36 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11744 – 11745 OF 2025 43. The respondent admittedly transferred title of land to SICCL after negotiating the price thereof with the owners and procuring a Power of Attorney to execute the sale deeds. Hence, these activities were purely of sale/conveyance of immovable property which clearly falls within the exception as provided under Section

HT MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed

C.A. No.-023525-023526 - 2017Supreme Court16 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 65(105)(zu)Section 65(40)Section 65(41)Section 73

68) of the Finance Act defined ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’ as follows: “Manpower recruitment or supply agency” means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person”. 30. Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act defined ‘taxable service