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.

13 results for “section 68”+ Section 156(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi888Mumbai590Karnataka466Bangalore330Ahmedabad184Jaipur182Hyderabad142Chennai139Kolkata117Raipur96Cochin84Chandigarh82Pune71Indore61Calcutta54Panaji41Surat40Telangana32Lucknow28Nagpur27Visakhapatnam24Cuttack23Allahabad21SC20Rajkot19Amritsar13Varanasi9Guwahati7Ranchi6Rajasthan5Agra5Dehradun4Orissa3Jodhpur2Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 6826Addition to Income12Section 143(3)8Section 1476Section 366Section 2505Section 80G4Section 14A4Natural Justice4Section 144

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 530/ASR/2009[]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 12ASection 2Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

156 (statutes) at page no. 178 gives detailed reasons for inserting of sub-section (5B) in section 80G as follows: - “Deduction for donations made to funds or institutions for charitable purposes Under the existing provision of section 80G of the Income tax Act, 1961, a deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, institutions etc..is provided

3
Cash Deposit3
Condonation of Delay3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 359/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 68

156 Taxmann.com 75 has observed as under: “Where appellant showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that appellant failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68, since amount of loan received by appellant was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through

JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA-JALANDHAR,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/ASR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 68

156 Taxmann.com 75 has observed as under: “Where appellant showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that appellant failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68, since amount of loan received by appellant was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

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

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

3 Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT 6. Dalwinder Singh 1,50,000/- Cash 7. Hoshiar Singh 1,00,000/- Cash 8. Surinder Bansal 1,50,000/- Cash Total Rs.10,00,000/- Affidavits from six of them were filed, i.e., other than the persons listed at serial nos. 1 and 2 above, who were neither produced by the assessee

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 641/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv
Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

68 of the Act 61 , on account of unexplained cash credit after rejection of books of accounts invoking provisions of section 145(3). 19. Before concluding the Ld. AR referred to the bank statement of HDFC bank and submitted that in the instant case the total cash deposited in bank during the FY is only Rs. 71.12 lakhs , ( including

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 123/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

156-C, Srinagar. Javidan Building Rajbagh, Srinagar. [PAN: AABCT3414F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. P.K. Misra, CA Date of Hearing 26.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: Both the appeals of the revenue were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu,[in brevity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 124/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

156-C, Srinagar. Javidan Building Rajbagh, Srinagar. [PAN: AABCT3414F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. P.K. Misra, CA Date of Hearing 26.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: Both the appeals of the revenue were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu,[in brevity

H. N. AGRI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

ITA 94/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as deemed income penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I. T. Act, 1961 are initiated.” I.T.A. No.150/Asr/2021 8 & I.T.A. No. 94/Asr/2021 4.2 The ld. counsel in his argument submitted a paper book containing page 1 to 30 which is kept in record. In argument, the ld. counsel categorically stated that the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU vs. M/S HN AGRI SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 150/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as deemed income penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I. T. Act, 1961 are initiated.” I.T.A. No.150/Asr/2021 8 & I.T.A. No. 94/Asr/2021 4.2 The ld. counsel in his argument submitted a paper book containing page 1 to 30 which is kept in record. In argument, the ld. counsel categorically stated that the assessment

SH. SURINDER KUMAR MAHAJAN, GOVT. CONTRACTOR,,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 534/ASR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 44Section 44ASection 68

3,30,574) were held to be unexplained cash deposit and confirmed u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, with the impugned order and the assessee filed an appeal before us, objected to the confirmation of the addition of Rs.20,86,691/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and ignoring the turnover of Rs.52

AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 68

section 282 of the IT Act, 1961. The specific objection was raised during the course of assessment proceedings and the same has not even not rebutted by the AO during assessment proceedings and ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 2 Ambey Construction Company this fact has even been admitted by him in the remand report. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred