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.

10 results for “section 68”+ Section 172(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai797Delhi701Karnataka469Bangalore172Jaipur161Hyderabad136Chennai108Ahmedabad92Kolkata76Indore74Cochin73Chandigarh68Surat61Calcutta51Raipur49Pune43Cuttack28Allahabad26Lucknow21Nagpur21Telangana15Agra14Guwahati14Amritsar10SC10Rajkot9Ranchi9Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur7Rajasthan4Jabalpur2Panaji2Orissa2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 115B16Section 6815Addition to Income10Section 143(3)7Section 250(6)4Section 153A4Section 133A3Section 133(6)3Section 69A3Cash Deposit

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: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2019AY 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

172 ITR 250 (SC), embody the principles of common law jurisprudence enshrined in the Evidence Act, i.e., if a person is found in possession of something, the onus to prove that he is not the owner thereof is on him. The relevant sections falling under Chapter VI of the Act under subhead ‘Aggregation’ of income’, provide for deeming

3
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 212/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vinay Jamwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

3 Asstt. CIT v. Mohd. Ashraf Sheikh ITR of the disputed creditors. However, the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO in respect of the following creditors: Amount SI No. Name of the assessee advanced (a) Jan wani Mohammed 40,00,000 Rs. 30 lacs from Bhawani Singh

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

172 ITR 250 (SC), these provisions only seek to provide statutory 8 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined in the Evidence Act. Though the matter is principally factual, so that it should not give rise to any confusion, the user of one section instead of another, which

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

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

ITA 319/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the same seek to provide statutory recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined

ABDUL HAFIZ,UDHAMPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

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

ITA 465/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 465/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

68 or, for that matter, sections 69, 69A, et. al, which are essentially rules of evidence. The other provisions, viz. section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

ITA 166/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1124000/- u/s 69A ignoring the fact that the said sum of Rs. 1124000/- was already available with him on account of profits earned during the year under consideration for pre- demonetization period as well as during the various previous years and out of withdrawals made during

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 148/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

172, Partap Nagar, Central Circle, Amritsar 143001, Punjab Amritsar [PAN: BRTPS 8166A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. Aggarwal Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.06.2022 passed

BALDEV SINGH S/O GAJJAN SINGH,TARN TARAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, TARN TARAN

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

ITA 178/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 178/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. T. S. Aurora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 110Section 143(3)Section 69A

172 ITR 250 (SC), the expression ‘income’ in section 69A of the Act had a wide meaning which meant anything which came in or a resulted in gain. Further, sections 69 and others are 4 Baldev Singh v. ITO based section 110 of the Evidence Act, which embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence, viz., where

SH. ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 128/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT- DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68

3. At the outset, it was observed that there is delay of 34 days in filing of the instant appeals, for which the assessee has prayed for (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) Sh. Arun Narula vs. DCIT condonation of delay on the ground that though the impugned orders were served upon the assessee on dated 09.11.2018 and therefore, the appeals

SH.ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT- DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68

3. At the outset, it was observed that there is delay of 34 days in filing of the instant appeals, for which the assessee has prayed for (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) Sh. Arun Narula vs. DCIT condonation of delay on the ground that though the impugned orders were served upon the assessee on dated 09.11.2018 and therefore, the appeals