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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai734Delhi597Kolkata419Karnataka302Bangalore286Jaipur242Chennai203Ahmedabad140Pune109Chandigarh102Hyderabad87Rajkot86Indore76Surat62Raipur58Panaji58Visakhapatnam54Cochin31Lucknow28Agra23Nagpur21Cuttack20Jodhpur15Amritsar14Patna12Guwahati9Allahabad6Jabalpur5Telangana5Calcutta4Ranchi2Varanasi2Uttarakhand1Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26310Section 80I7Section 36(1)(ii)6Section 13(8)5Addition to Income3Section 115J2Section 802Section 3022Section 3642Deduction

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

ITTA/382/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013
Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being

The Commisioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. Hyderabad House Pvt. Ltd.,

ITTA/259/2013
2
Revision u/s 2632
HC Telangana
12 Jul 2013
For Appellant: - Commissioner Of Income TaxFor Respondent: - M/S Green Land Motors
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

revision u/s 263 of the Act? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,83,277/-, Rs.1,70,00,000/-, Rs.50,579/- and Rs.1,09,00,000/- made by the CIT?" 2. The Commissioner, Income Tax, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'C.I.T.') issued a show-cause notice under

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

ITTA/447/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 115JSection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 80

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis, were

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

ITTA/147/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013
For Appellant: - Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assistedFor Respondent: - A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan
Section 156(3)Section 201Section 302Section 363Section 364Section 366Section 376

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

ITTA/622/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

U/S 17(1) & (3) OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ACT, UNDER PRLY. NOTIFICATION DATED 03.02.2003 & THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.06.2014 PRODUCED AT ANN-A & ANN-B PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONER IN SITUATED IN KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ. BANGALORE IS CONCERNED AND ETC IN W.P. NO. 47913/2014: BETWEEN