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.

45 results for “section 68”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,536Mumbai3,242Bangalore1,019Ahmedabad751Chennai710Kolkata669Karnataka665Jaipur633Hyderabad480Pune389Indore385Surat338Chandigarh321Cochin280Raipur185Visakhapatnam145Rajkot128Cuttack105Nagpur105Lucknow93Guwahati90Telangana85Amritsar80Calcutta67Panaji60Ranchi54Allahabad47SC45Agra44Jodhpur41Patna37Varanasi18Jabalpur17Dehradun15Rajasthan12Orissa8Kerala5Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Penalty13Section 44C11Section 80P9Section 276C9Section 35B8Section 80H8Section 17(5)(d)7Deduction7Addition to Income7Section 144C

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

6
Section 806
Limitation/Time-bar5
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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J

80-IA and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in that sub-section; or (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section

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 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b) and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. As regards Issue no.3, Commissioner held that charge of evasion of duty by mala fide intent, wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts was clearly established. CEGAT held that there was no willful mis-declaration, no evasion or short levy

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 respectively, wherein the assessee

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

C.A. No.-005173-005173 - 2007Supreme Court13 Nov 2007
For Respondent: K. Ravindranathan Nair
Section 28Section 80H

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200 (90%) was deducted in terms of clause

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-001260-001261 - 1997Supreme Court16 Feb 2004
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(a)Section 276Section 276C

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

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

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

C.A. No.-010245-010245 - 2017Supreme Court08 Aug 2017
Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

80,09,880/- Tax there on : (as per computation Form enclosed). Tax payable : Rs.19,57,32,920/- 6) It may be pointed out that in the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}, the order of the Assessing Officer making disallowance under Section 68

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 260ASection 28Section 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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

C.A. No.-003568-003568 - 2001Supreme Court09 Jul 2007
For Respondent: M/s Tara Agencies
Section 35B

80-1B of the Act. 31. The High Court in the said judgment has dealt with the terms \023manufacture\024, \023production\024 and \023process\024 in great detail. The High Court in the said judgment arrived at a definite finding that blending though does not amount to manufacturing of goods but it clearly amounts to processing of goods

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)

80. In   simple   terms,   2   different   methods   of   valuation   were prescribed in Section 4 as it stood prior to 01.07.2000: (i) one covered by clause (a) of sub­section (1) of Section 4, where   the   emphasis   was   on   normal   price,   the determination of which co­related to ordinary sale in the 54 course  of  wholesale  trade  (satisfying  certain  conditions

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

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

Section 68 Rs. 19,16,000.00 (iv) Lease rentals of cinematographic films held to be bogus and assessed as income from other sources http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17 Rs. 63,43,750.00 The Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order of assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment

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

68 to 80 eggs in a year, whereas by employing modern scientific methods assessee produces about 280 eggs in a year and is capable of producing 220 to 230 chicks in a year through artificial incubation. For the larger growth of eggs and chicks, it is necessary that incubation has to be mechanical as the broody hens are now virtually

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

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

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

M/S. UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CUSTOMS &CENTRAL EXCISE,RAJKOT

C.A. No.-002338-002338 - 2001Supreme Court08 Feb 2005
For Respondent: Commnr. of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot
Section 130

80 of 1976) and includes any bay, gulf, harbour, creek or tidal river; Section 14, which is the relevant provision for valuing the vessel sold by the importer, reads:- "Sec. 14 - Valuation of goods for purpose of assessment.\027 (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or any other law for the time