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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 801clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai470Delhi460Karnataka285Kolkata217Ahmedabad121Jaipur117Hyderabad98Bangalore68Pune44Calcutta38Chandigarh36Chennai32Visakhapatnam29Lucknow28Indore26Guwahati24Allahabad23Nagpur23Surat21Cuttack15Rajkot13Ranchi12Telangana8Agra7Cochin7Dehradun6Amritsar5Jodhpur5SC4Jabalpur4Orissa2Patna2Raipur2Uttarakhand1Panaji1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 224Section 272Section 252Section 962Section 12(1)(C)2Revision u/s 2632

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

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

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

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/23/2018HC Telangana04 Jun 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: Mr.Ashish Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(C)Section 19(1)

68 of 2016 so far, the annulment of marriage between the parties under Section 12(1) (C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed. 71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/ wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

ITTA/191/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

For Respondent: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, GP for Commercial Tax
Section 22

801 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 23 33 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch determine whether the exemption is applicable to the assessee or not. Once such exemption is indeed .found to be applicable to the assessee, a liberal approach is to be adopted by the Court in construing the language, such as to allow

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 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

801, BDA FLAT, AUSTIN TOWN LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 047 17. CHANDRARAO S S/O SRI SUBBARO B AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.120, 1ST CROSS ROAD, GORAKAMANTHANAPALYA, BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560 075 18. S.V. SUNDARARAJAN S/O SRI S VISWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.8/13, 4TH D CROSS, MADIWALA EXTENSION, MARUTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 068 19. P.K. DESHPANDE

The Commissioner of Income - tax - I vs. AP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.,

In the result, (i) A.S.(MD)No

ITTA/12/2016HC Telangana03 Jun 2016

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reserving The Judgment Date Of Pronouncing The Judgment 08.10.2025 05.11.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice C.V.Karthikeyan & The Honourable Mr.Justice R.Vijayakumar A.S.(Md)Nos.12 & 17 Of 2016 & C.M.P.(Md)Nos.854 Of 2016, 4032 & 4276 Of 2025 A.S.(Md)No.12 Of 2016

Section 96

801/- was issued on 04.11.2009, of which Rs.85,063/- was towards settlement of the 'Anbu Illam' construction, Rs.27,000/- was towards the purchase of cots, and the balance sum of Rs.1,16,738/- was an advance towards the labour contract work for the Navalcaud building. It was also contended that the respondent had previously received an advance amount of Rs.7

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

ITTA/121/2013HC Telangana26 Jul 2013

801. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Registration and Stamps, Ministry of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 032. 2. Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, Department of Registration and Stamps, Government of Maharashtra, New Administration Building, Ground Floor, Opp Council Hall, Pune. 3. Commissioner of Customs (General), Nhava Sheva, CCSP