Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

19 results for “section 68”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi731 Mumbai542 Karnataka470 Bangalore193 Chennai192 Jaipur151 Ahmedabad148 Kolkata127 Cochin72 Hyderabad58 Calcutta53 Surat52 Indore51 Chandigarh49 Raipur44 Telangana37 Pune33 Visakhapatnam32 Nagpur31 Lucknow24 Amritsar19 Rajkot16 Cuttack13 SC12 Allahabad12 Jodhpur10 Patna9 Rajasthan7 Agra7 Dehradun5 Orissa3 Jabalpur2 Andhra Pradesh1 Panaji1 Guwahati1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 6844 Section 26341 Section 143(3)29 Section 115B17 Section 56(1)(vii)15 Addition to Income14 Section 153A10 Section 271(1)(c)8 Cash Deposit7

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

138 taxmann.com under section 68 on account of cash deposited by assessee in its two bank account post demonetization

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 432/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed

Bogus Purchases4

ITAT Amritsar

27 Feb 2019

AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 25.11.2016 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The assessee-society, registered u/s. 12AA of the Act, is engaged in charitable activity by way of running various educational and medical institutions, the names of seven of which are listed at pg. 15 of the assessment order

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 731/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 730/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 145Section 68

138 taxmann.com 141 Anantpur Kalpana v. Income-tax Officer (ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'SMC-B) (Since the sale proceeds for which cash was received from the customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

138/- in the regular books of accounts at cost price. It was\nhighlighted that MRP, as per the Standard Weight & Measurement Act, incorporates\ntaxes such as GST, and no additional charges can be levied from the customer\nbeyond this. It was further clarified that the MRP includes GST element and is\nfurther subject to adjustment on account of margin

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/ASR/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. Inderjit Paul (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 184(2)Section 420Section 68

section 251), did not travel beyond the scope of the appeal before him; the issue arising being the validity of the assessment as framed. There is no question of the first appellate authority, or the AO, in consequence, traveling to a new source of income, as claimed before us. There was in fact no material before

LATE SMT. MOHINI PURI THROUGH,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 76/ASR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149

138-141). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would object, placing reliance on the decision in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB) to the effect that it is the issue of notice u/s. 148(1) that is relevant for the purpose

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 305/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

ITA 5/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

ITA 547/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 579/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

SHRI ALLAH RAKHA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 230/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250oSection 68

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. 2. That the Learned CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi has erred both in law as well as on facts by dismissing the appeal of the Appellant

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263p

138-139 9 Narinder and Company v. ITO 7.3 That the assessee has furnished the cash book and produced sales bills to the AO physically in the income tax office on 26.12.2019. a) The copy of cash book submitted by the assessee is enclosed in the paper book at page 165-221. b) That the copy of sales bills produced

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 75/ASR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

138 dated 31.05.2021 on the subject cited above wherein your good office has authorized u/s 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to conduct necessary inquiry to verify the genuineness of the claim made in the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana, in the case of captioned assessee. 2. In this connection, it is submitted that