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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 302clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka466Mumbai374Delhi313Jaipur138Chennai89Bangalore85Ahmedabad85Chandigarh80Kolkata69Hyderabad44Rajkot42Surat42Indore35Pune32Nagpur17Cochin10Raipur9Dehradun9Telangana7Ranchi7SC7Lucknow6Jodhpur6Visakhapatnam5Amritsar4Calcutta4Jabalpur2Allahabad2Guwahati2Cuttack2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 3025Section 343Section 3643Section 2013Addition to Income3Section 1202Section 2162Section 272Section 252

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

ITTA/28/2013HC Telangana30 Jul 2013
For Appellant: - DevendraFor Respondent: - State of U.P
Section 148Section 149Section 157Section 302Section 307Section 372

302 read with 149 IPC cannot be sustained and at the most, the offence could be under Section 325 or 326 and the injuries which are superficial in nature have to be ignored. 60. It is further argued that it could also be the case of sudden fight as the prosecution witnesses came to the spot on hearing

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

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 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

ITTA/81/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 120Section 201Section 216Section 302Section 34Section 364

302 read with 120- B IPC, within my cognizance. Thirdly, in the evening of 6.6.96 from the office of Subhash Gupta at the MCD Building, Okhla, you all in furtherance of your conspiracy had abducted Dr. Sunil Kaul, Ms. Sujata Saha and Mrs. Deepa Gupta after sedating them in the three cars, i.e. BMW driven y accused Shubhash Gupta, Maruti

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

ITTA/523/2017HC Telangana21 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 34Section 9

68,589/- with the Registry on 01.09.2018, in purported compliance of orders dated 24.07.2018 read with 21.08.2018. 7. On 10.09.2018, Court appointed M/s PN Chopra & Co. as a Valuer to ascertain the realizable value of the assets mentioned in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner. On 23.10.2018, the Valuer submitted its Report. 8. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner deposited

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Coromandel Hotesl Pvt. Ltd.,

ITTA/302/2011HC Telangana23 Aug 2011

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

For Appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with

302 of 2011 For the appellants : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ___________________________________________________________ FAO (MVA) No. 307 of 2011 For the appellants : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondent

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