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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 36(1)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,568Mumbai2,933Bangalore1,284Chennai852Ahmedabad750Jaipur691Karnataka665Kolkata606Hyderabad494Chandigarh323Pune307Cochin249Indore247Visakhapatnam175Surat160Nagpur132Raipur122Rajkot113Agra109Lucknow108Telangana99Cuttack87Amritsar81Guwahati65Calcutta62SC61Ranchi50Allahabad50Jodhpur41Panaji32Patna31Varanasi25Dehradun22Jabalpur11Orissa10Rajasthan9Kerala7Uttarakhand3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 1732

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Kanpur vs. Rajan Rajesh Kumar

The Appeal stands dismissed without being admitted

ITA/12/2024HC Uttarakhand17 Dec 2025

Bench: This Court Being Aggrieved By The Judgment & Order Dated 08.02.2024, Whereby The Appellate Tribunal Was Pleased To Allow The Appeal Of The Respondent. 3.

For Appellant: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel
Section 133ASection 151

36. A perusal of Section 246A, which provides for Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), refers to Sections 115VP, 200A, 206CB, 143, 144, 144BA, 115WE, 115WF, 115WG, 147, 150, 153A, 92CD, 154, 155, 163, 170, 171, 185, 186, 201 etc., but does not provide for an Appeal against the order under Section

Hari Mohan Sarswat vs. DCIT CIRCLE

ITA/42/2015HC Uttarakhand
05 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

Section 173

v) (b) of the Insurance Act. 16. There have been an independent written statement, being paper No. 33 Ga, which was filed by the opposite party No. 5, to the Claim Petition, i.e. the Insurer of the Santro Car, who had attributed the entire negligence and liability, as per the pleadings raised in para 20 and 21 of the written

M/S SIEM OFFSHORE INC. vs. The Deputy Director Of Income Tax

ITA/43/2015HC Uttarakhand24 Nov 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI

Section 173

v) (b) of the Insurance Act. 16. There have been an independent written statement, being paper No. 33 Ga, which was filed by the opposite party No. 5, to the Claim Petition, i.e. the Insurer of the Santro Car, who had attributed the entire negligence and liability, as per the pleadings raised in para 20 and 21 of the written