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.

97 results for “section 68”+ Section 13(3)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,144Delhi5,693Bangalore1,942Chennai1,525Kolkata1,400Ahmedabad1,198Jaipur782Hyderabad705Karnataka692Indore637Surat559Pune440Chandigarh398Cochin388Visakhapatnam311Raipur294Rajkot274Cuttack192Nagpur182Lucknow165Agra152Guwahati125Amritsar106Telangana97SC96Allahabad83Ranchi82Jabalpur79Jodhpur75Patna69Calcutta59Panaji39Dehradun28Varanasi26Orissa12Rajasthan11Kerala10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Gauhati3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Addition to Income31Section 9612Section 2608Section 1488Section 1537Section 36(1)(ii)6Section 143(3)5Section 3025Section 153A5Revision u/s 263

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

ITTA/322/2008HC Telangana04 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 108Section 13(1)(a)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(e)

e) and non user as contemplated by Section 13 (1)(k) of the Act. 59. Plaintiffs have contended that defendant no.1 has, since coming into operation of the Act, unlawfully sub-let or given on leave and licence, the whole or part of the suit premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner her interest thereon in favour

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

ITTA/316/2011HC Telangana15 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

5
Search & Seizure4
Exemption4

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections-S. 100(4) and S. 217(2)(e

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/193/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Debabrata Roy
Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 7

3 also noted that the post-trap formalities were observed by PW-6. xii. PW-4, acting as the Superintendent of South Nadia at Kalyani Bidhan Park Post Office, affirmed his authority to approve the initiation of legal action against a staff member categorized as Group ‘D’ within the mentioned post office. The authorization document dated 27.3.1997, issued

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/43/2011HC Telangana30 Mar 2011

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 374(2)

section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short), and been sentenced for simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default imprisonment for six months. 2. The accused was working as the manager of Canara Bank, Sindhaghatta Branch, Mandya District, during the check period 1.5.2004 to 9.5.2006. The investigation that followed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

ITTA/227/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

68. 1973 KLT 463 69. (1988) 69 STC 29 (Kerala DB) 70. 36 LJQB 81 71. (1954) 5 STC 348 (T-C) 72. (1955) 2 SCR 374 73. (1895) Q.B. 749 74. 15 Ves. 396, 406 75. 1995 Supp

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/94/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 21

E] would show that the petitioner's prayer for grant of No Objection Certificate in relation to the scheme was not granted. Once such prayer was rejected, then, it would simply mean that the prayer made in the application was rejected.” 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition with a cost of Rs.10,000/-, with following reasons

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

ITTA/733/2017HC Telangana28 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 6

E N T V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CM No. 41572/2017 (for taking the additional documents on record) & CM No. 41573/2017 (for permission to file LPA against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2017 in WP(C) 2217/2016) in LPA 733/2017 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and disposed of. LPAs 733/2017 & 734/2017 1. These two appeals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

ITTA/190/2007HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: 1.M.SRAVAN KUMAR, Spl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.IFor Respondent: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
Section 13Section 378(4)

e) The accused officer was caught red-handed when he accepted bribe of Rs.25,000/- from P.W1 given to P.W3/Auditor, who was present along with them for reducing the tax payable by P.W1; that the numbers of the tainted currency notes were tallied with the notes of currency numbers mentioned in pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P3-First Mediators Report, dated

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

ITTA/335/2017HC Telangana26 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 260Section 80G(5)

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

ITTA/9/2005HC Telangana21 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 143(1)(a)

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

ITTA/7/2005HC Telangana21 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 143(1)(a)

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

ITTA/28/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(1)(a)

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITTA/8/2005HC Telangana05 Jul 2012
Section 143(1)(a)

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

ITTA/242/2012HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13(2) of PC Act, and Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The allegation against him was that, Sri.Joy, who Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 15 was a real estate broker, hatched a criminal conspiracy with A1, Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Cherpu branch, A13 Sri.K.T Thomas, a Chartered Accountant,and A14 Sri.G. Jyothi

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

ITTA/250/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

E. 21.02.2009 4 years 7,50,000/- 16.09.2013 F. 18.03.2009 16 years 5,87,216/- * 07.09.2012 G. 17.07.2010 17 years 7,13,827/-* 31.10.2013 H. 09.08.2010 3 years 3,75,000/- 23.05.2013 I. 09.04.2011 14 years 3,75,000/- 09.12.2014 J. 14.05.2011 17 years 4,20,000/- 13.12.2012 K. 30.06.2011 10 years 6,68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

ITTA/327/2007HC Telangana28 Nov 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3 of 12 8. In the Codicil Ex.OW1/4, on the other hand, the bequest made to Sh.Dinesh Bahl in the Will dated 12.08.1986 has been transferred to his son, Sh.Rajiv Bahl on account of poor health of Sh.Dinesh Bahl i.e. the front portion stands bequeathed to S/Shri Ashok Bahl and Rajiv Bahl. All other assets were divided equally amongst S/Shri

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/411/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 3Section 3(3)Section 5ASection 5A(1)

3) Such cannot be permitted to be invoked against the overwhelming public inter est. (4) The Legislature or the Parliament has power for diluting its effect retrospe ctively by enacting any law. 117. If the record produced on behalf of the Central Government is considered, i t appears that none is concerning to the object which was at the time

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

ITTA/108/2022HC Telangana25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

ITTA/94/2022HC Telangana24 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel