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.

42 results for “section 68”+ Section 154(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,457Mumbai1,161Karnataka508Bangalore397Cochin268Jaipur267Chennai232Kolkata218Indore206Ahmedabad188Hyderabad143Chandigarh131Pune128Agra72Surat71Raipur58Lucknow54Guwahati54Calcutta54Visakhapatnam47Telangana42Nagpur42Amritsar37Rajkot33Jodhpur28SC22Cuttack18Patna12Allahabad8Dehradun8Ranchi7Rajasthan5Panaji4Orissa3Kerala3Varanasi3Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Addition to Income7Section 74Section 271(1)(c)3Section 3023Penalty3Section 672Section 143(2)2Section 143(3)2Section 13(1)(d)2Section 260

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

1:15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process, both he and PW-8 overheard a conversation conducted in Bengali between the appellant and PW-2, witnessing the exchange of the bribe money. Following the conversation, the entrapment operation unfolded, leading to the apprehension of the appellant. PW- 3 also noted that

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

ITTA/399/2011HC Telangana

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

2
Revision u/s 2632
24 Jul 2013
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

68,280/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of inaccurate particulars furnished by assessee in original return and detected by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny u/s 143(3)?” 3. The counsel for the appellant and the assessee has taken us to the judgment of ITAT which held as under:- We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After

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

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

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

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

ITTA/227/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

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

154) ELT 343 (S.C.) 4. 1999 (108) ELT 321 5. 2007 (214) ELT 491 6. (2011) 15 SCC 451 7. (1971) 2 SCC 163 8. (1996) 5 SCC 373 9. (1978) 41 STC 315 10. (1984) 15 ELT 7 11. (1939) F.C.R. 18 12. AIR 1962 SC 1281 13. AIR 1963 SC 104 14. (1942) F.C.R

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 260

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/244/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

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

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

ITTA/212/2015HC Telangana02 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 55Section 55(5)(a)Section 67

154) Regarding denial of opportunity for examination and cross Examination of witnesses. The appellant has raised a specific contention of denial of opportunity for examination of witnesses and thereby violation of principles of natural justice. The Intelligence Officer has discovered materials during the enquiry which will throw light into the transactions of appellants and other dealers. The OT.REV 212/2015

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

ITTA/6/2012HC Telangana27 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

ITTA/54/2011HC Telangana27 Jul 2011

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

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

ITTA/380/2010HC Telangana17 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

ITTA/11/2017HC Telangana24 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

ITTA/293/2007HC Telangana03 May 2024

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

ITTA/65/2007HC Telangana25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITTA/287/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Commissionr of Income TAx-3 vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

ITTA/14/2016HC Telangana18 Jul 2016

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.NCC - KNR JV

ITTA/253/2010HC Telangana09 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires