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.

21 results for “section 68”+ Section 256(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi728Mumbai646Karnataka442Jaipur206Ahmedabad188Kolkata145Bangalore128Chennai98Cochin91Surat72Hyderabad51Raipur44Nagpur44Indore40Chandigarh38Lucknow29Cuttack28Pune26Visakhapatnam25Rajkot24Amritsar21Calcutta20Agra19Telangana14Allahabad9Dehradun9Jodhpur8Guwahati8Varanasi7SC5Rajasthan4Andhra Pradesh1Patna1Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1Orissa1Kerala1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 14755Section 26331Section 14826Section 69A20Section 143(3)18Addition to Income16Section 6812Section 250(6)11Section 28210Survey u/s 133A

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

256 (Delhi). “IV. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment year 2017-18 -Assessee-company was engaged in business of selling dry fruits - post-demonetization, assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 180.53 crore in its bank accounts - Assessing Officer held that cash deposits made by assessee represented unaccounted income and accordingly, made additions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

10
Cash Deposit6
Unexplained Cash Credit3
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

2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the primary onus cast upon the assessee

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

2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the primary onus cast upon the assessee

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

2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the primary onus cast upon the assessee

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 606/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 607/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

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

256 194 1117 Aluminium wire 05.11.2016 166286.00 258 194 67 GI wire 07.11.2016 166327.00 260 194 69 GI wire 07.11.2016 56863.00 262 194 11 Narinder and Company v. ITO 3707029.00 7.6 That the assessee has submitted reply before the assessing officer in which the same figure of cash sales has been reflected in the reply dated 04.12.2019(Please refer page

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 164/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 68 is concerned. The AO had been required to make an enquiry and verify the genuinity of the appellant's claim; however the AO in the remand report reiterated/ repeated the facts which were pre-existing in the assessment order. However, the AO without verifying the correctness of the identity of these sundry creditors or without bringing

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

256(1) in-as-much as the tribunal had decided the question of applicability or otherwise of section 68 in the facts and circumstances of the case, as indeed we have in the instant case, by issuing definite findings of fact. The Hon’ble Court found the findings by the tribunal as based on the material on record

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

2. A survey u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

ITA 357/ASR/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Negi (D.R.)
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)

68 ITR 708 (Bom) and Kamal Ashish Singh v. ITO (in ITA No. 721/Asr/2017, dated 24/6/2019). The matter, accordingly, is to be considered from the stand-point of the requirement of the said report for deciding the instant appeal. The twin issues that emanate on the basis of the fact and circumstance of the case, are: (a) Whether the nature