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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 211clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi609Karnataka527Mumbai353Bangalore182Chennai149Hyderabad120Jaipur100Pune88Ahmedabad81Kolkata80Chandigarh54Calcutta51Raipur45Telangana33Indore28Cochin28Guwahati20Rajkot20Surat19Lucknow16Visakhapatnam15SC8Jodhpur8Dehradun5Kerala5Rajasthan5Nagpur5Allahabad4Jabalpur4Varanasi4Orissa3Patna2Panaji2Amritsar2Agra1Cuttack1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 41(1)5Section 92C3Section 80I3Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

section 68. Again, the period for which the liability had remained unpaid, i.e., as at the end of the relevant year, etc., are all matters of fact, again, emphasizing, if one was still necessary, that the matter as to whether a liability subsists as at the year-end or not is essentially factual, even as clarified in several decisions

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Section 80-IA(8) - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the method adopted by the Assessee for determining the arm's length price was correct, and the adjustments made by the AO were not in line with the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in this situation, and in our opinion, the addition made