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.

118 results for “section 68”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,216Mumbai8,820Kolkata2,772Bangalore2,521Ahmedabad2,072Chennai1,984Jaipur1,461Hyderabad1,360Pune1,270Surat900Chandigarh858Indore797Karnataka789Cochin607Raipur457Rajkot453Visakhapatnam411Nagpur282Lucknow267Amritsar256Agra238Cuttack231Guwahati209Telangana157Jodhpur135Patna135Ranchi132SC118Jabalpur115Calcutta103Allahabad101Panaji97Dehradun94Varanasi48Rajasthan22Orissa13Kerala13A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Uttarakhand4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income27Penalty26Section 13215Section 143(2)15Section 80H14Exemption14Deduction12Section 11A11Section 44C11Section 2

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

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

10
Section 689
Section 276C9
C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section

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

7. This provision being a definition clause merely defines various activities which could be termed as a business. Section 2(13) of the Act gives a broad definition to ‘business’. Section 28 of the Act comes under the heading ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’. Various types of income enumerated thereunder are made chargeable to income

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, and that the onus on the Assessee Company stood fully discharged. 3.7. The AO had issued summons to the representatives of the investor companies. Despite the summons having been served, nobody appeared on behalf of any of the investor companies. The Department only received submissions 5 through dak, which created a doubt about

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

7 presented under that section; (b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under section 68

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.

section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal further relied upon the decision in Board of Cricket Control for India v. Commissioner4 to uphold the order of the Commissioner imposing the demand of service tax under the category of programme producer services during the relevant period. The Tribunal did not accept the argument of the appellant that

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 was ordered and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) had no application. Finally, this Court held that the consequence of non-removal of the warehoused goods within the permitted period or the permitted extension by virtue of Section 72 is certain. The date on which it comes to an end is the date relevant for determining the rate

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

68 is also liable to get himself registered under Section 69 read with the Rules and such person that is the person liable to pay service tax must also assess the tax and file Return under Section 70, as prescribed in the Rules. 61. I have already explained the scope of Sections 67 to 70. The contention

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 Act. There is no dispute about the same but the assessees in no manner raised any plea that even if their explanation is not acceptable the same cannot be treated as an income in their hands. In cases where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of sums found credited

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

7. Mr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment. 8. The period for which the service tax was due is August 1998 to September 2002. Under the agreement, indisputably, the appellant was responsible to make payment of the service tax on behalf of the foreign company

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

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

7 the Department had relied upon Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act to impose the  addition.    The  appellant/assessee has  also placed reliance on the Hindi version of the assessment order to buttress this submission; Third, that the  assessment was made under Section 144 as the same refers to Section 145(3).  Under Section

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

Section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for a building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. The word “plant” is given inclusive meaning under Section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. The Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 68 of 91 Rules prescribing the rates of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation on buildings

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

7) SCR 664 38 crore (from FY-2007-08 to 2020-21), which given its financial condition will jeopardise its existence and functioning. 59. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel argued on behalf of Bhatinda Improvement Trust and adopted the submissions of Mr. Soparkar. She urged, in addition, that it is obligatory on part of the assessee (a statutory corporation

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI-I vs. M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA

The appeal is disposed of

C.A. No.-000216-000216 - 2007Supreme Court04 Sept 2015
Section 3ASection 68Section 7

68 of the Customs Act, 1962 (no. 52 of 1962), as the case may, makes a specified C.A. No. 216/2007 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT declaration to that effect in the Bill of Entry in the manner specified below. Provided that rate specified therein shall not apply if the importer sells the said imported goods from a place located

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 in the absence of duty being paid. The cancellation of warehousing licence was obtained by fraud as duty had not been deposited. Hence duty payable is covered under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. Action was taken against the customs officials i.e. respondent nos. 5 to 7

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)

7 Ch. App. 760, 764. 21 (1970) 40 Comp Cas 689. 22 See – Rule 147, Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2013 Page 21 of 38 payment of interest subsequent to the date of winding up.23 There is, however, an exception to the two-fold method, as has been held in Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh

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)

7,21,568 under Section 11AC, (iv) imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 25 and (v) imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 each on Sh. B. Abdul  Salam,  Sh.  J.  M.  Ashraf and  Sh. Manoj  Kumar  Amin under Rule 26.  39 62. The   Adjudicating   Authority   held   that   there   was undervaluation on assessee’s part

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 cannot said to have been excluded for regular assessments." [ Emphasis supplied ] Sections 132 to 132B of the Act embody an integrated scheme laying down the procedure comprehensively for search and seizure and the power of the authorities making the search and seizure to order the confiscation of the assets seized. Section 132A gives power to the authorities

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

7 13.Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously urged that in the instant case the imported goods lost their identity when they were used in the manufacture of vessel along with domestically procured goods, and were cleared as such, and therefore, the revenue cannot claim on the one breath that the ship was “manufactured