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.

10 results for “section 68”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,255Delhi1,229Kolkata836Bangalore568Karnataka459Jaipur333Ahmedabad320Chennai300Pune175Chandigarh173Hyderabad147Indore143Rajkot127Surat121Visakhapatnam97Raipur91Calcutta70Panaji65Cochin63Nagpur62Lucknow58Agra39Cuttack38Guwahati34Amritsar28Jodhpur26Patna17Allahabad11SC10Telangana10Jabalpur9Ranchi8Dehradun8Rajasthan4Kerala3Varanasi3Uttarakhand1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26312Section 80I7Section 36(1)(ii)6Section 13(8)5Addition to Income5Section 143(3)3Revision u/s 2633Section 115J2Section 802Section 260A

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

Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 8. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.I supra and it was held that the phrase ‘prejudicial

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

The appeal is disposed of

2
Deduction2
ITTA/447/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 115JSection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 80

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. The present appeal by the appellant-assessee relates to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The appellant-assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs.1,82,68

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

ITTA/259/2013HC Telangana12 Jul 2013
For Appellant: - Commissioner Of Income TaxFor Respondent: - M/S Green Land Motors
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

263 of the Act on 03.05.2011 and added sum of Rs.83,00,000/- + 87,00,000/-, total Rs.1,70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

ITTA/113/2024HC Telangana04 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 263

68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But was, thereafter, picked up for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the Firm on 04.09.2015. Further, notices under Sections

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

ITTA/137/2005HC Telangana20 Dec 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

For Appellant: Sri A.V.Krishna KaundinyaFor Respondent: Ms. K.Mamata
Section 68

263 ITR 289 (Calcutta) 4 (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Raj.)       CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J.  itta_137_2005        7  4. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. 5. Section 68

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITTA/159/2005HC Telangana05 Jan 2018

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vasant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. K. Mamata
Section 10(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Alloy Nitrides Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

ITTA/477/2011HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization on account of death of Bhola Ram, the Executive Engineer in a motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE