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.

47 results for “section 68”+ Section 76clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,964Mumbai2,254Bangalore784Chennai649Karnataka623Ahmedabad604Kolkata504Jaipur440Hyderabad417Indore314Surat290Cochin281Chandigarh272Pune249Visakhapatnam112Raipur110Rajkot94Cuttack91Telangana81Lucknow75Calcutta67Amritsar57Allahabad52Guwahati49Nagpur47SC47Jodhpur38Ranchi28Agra25Dehradun22Patna13Rajasthan11Varanasi8Orissa7Jabalpur4Panaji4Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Section 44C11Penalty11Section 1329Section 38Section 17(5)(d)7Limitation/Time-bar7Section 276C6Section 144C6Section 11

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

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

6
Section 806
Exemption5

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

76 and 78 to 82 of 2002 whereby the following questions have been answered by the High Court in favour of the assessees and against the revenue: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to accept the principle of preponderance of probabilities in holding that the claim of the appellant that

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. An assessee may be held liable to pay tax along with interest pursuant to an audit, scrutiny, or investigation. This liability can be discharged either through self-assessment or by way of assessment conducted by the Department. The Act contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice under Sections 73, 74, and 76

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

76 The fact that the tower, if required can be removed, dismantled in the CKD and SKD and sold in the market is not disputed. Application of the tests evolved and discussed above on these items clearly points to the movability as opposed to immovability of these items. We are, thus, of the view that mobile towers and PFBs

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

C.A. No.-004475-004475 - 2025Supreme Court28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

68. We are quite befuddled by the answers given by the expert about flash point, as if he was not aware of the importance of flash point in petroleum products. He was Page 59 of 76 evasive as regards nonconformity on this parameter in determining whether the samples are those of HSD. Flash point has been mentioned in the Supplementary

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

76 of the GMB Act, which permits the setting aside of surplus money only for “expanding existing facilities or creating new facilities at the ports” or for meeting with contingencies caused on account of “fire, cyclones, shipwrecks or other accidents or for any other emergency.” It was stressed that that judgment clearly indicates GMB has no profit motive

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

Appeals are dismissed, with

C.A. No.-007814-007817 - 2004Supreme Court26 Sept 2005
For Respondent: M/s Aldec Corporation & Others
Section 35L

76 falls, has not been considered. Similarly, section 2(b) of section XVI of the HSN has not been considered. Further, the functional utility of PAS as deflector of air-flow has not been considered. The issue as to whether the PAS in question was for general purpose or was user specific was not considered. In the present

M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISES vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-000706-000706 - 2005Supreme Court08 Sept 2006
For Respondent: Commnr. of Customs, New Delhi
Section 15ASection 2Section 3Section 9A

76 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, indisputably, Sub-Section (8) was inserted stating the provisions of the Customs Act would be applicable "relating to, the date for determination of rate of duty, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties" in respect of anti-dumping duty. Sub-Section (1) of Section

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

76 of the Finance Act, 1994 upon M/s Elegant Developers, 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad (UP).” 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the Appellate Tribunal which stands allowed vide final judgment and order dated 21st June, 2019, and 5 CIVIL APPEAL

M/S. ESCORTS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

C.A. No.-006909-006912 - 2003Supreme Court25 Aug 2004
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Section 3

section and the conditions and restrictions that may be specified in the notification: http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5 Provided that the Central Government may specify the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, "inputs" includes- (a) inputs

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)

68. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has come up with this batch of 4 appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 6564­6567 of 2011.  Facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 9988­9991 of 2011 42 69. The facts of this last batch of appeals are also similar to the preceding cases. M/s. Hajee Timber Complex, Mangalore, which   is   the   assessee   concerned   in   this

M/S.GRASIM INDS.LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY

C.A. No.-001951-001951 - 1998Supreme Court04 Apr 2002
For Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Section 130

68; (b) Appliances or machinery (for example, pumps) or parts thereof, of ceramic material (Chapter 69); ©Laboratory glassware (heading No. 70.17); machinery appliances or other articles for technical uses or parts thereof, of glass (heading No. 70.19) or 70.20); (d) Articles of heading No. 73.21 or 73.22 or similar articles of other base metals (Chapter 74 to 76

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

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)

68. Further, it is relevant to note that both the revenue and the CESTAT have erroneously resorted to focusing on whether the bought out parts were essential to the functioning of the assembled boiler or not. The determination of the question, whether or not the bought out items were ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’, in terms of this Court’s observation

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

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-010815-010819 - 2014Supreme Court06 May 2025

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

68,593/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012 Category III Business Auxiliary Services (marketing and distributing): Section 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 Category II Management, maintenance or repair services : Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the activity of identifying new prospective customers

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

C.A. No.-004711-004712 - 2011Supreme Court22 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

Section 126M

68 came into force on the 1st September 1968. 12 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued, granted, adjudged, imposed or ordered, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 29th day of June