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 270A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi205Mumbai182Jaipur58Hyderabad46Ahmedabad45Bangalore36Chennai34Chandigarh32Pune29Rajkot25Guwahati16Lucknow16Surat12Nagpur9Indore8Raipur7Kolkata7Agra5Cochin3Cuttack3Jodhpur3Patna2Dehradun2Amritsar2SC1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 144C(13)2Section 802Section 1442Section 69A2Section 44A2Addition to Income2

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

9] [In favour of assessee] I.T.A. No.166/Asr/2022 16 Assessment Year: 2017-18 d) 2017] 88 taxmann.com 400 (Cochin - Trib.) IN THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH Smt.SuryakalaGopakumar v. Income tax Officer, Ward-4, Thiruvalla Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of assessee was explained from sale

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

68,26,820/- by applying 63.79% of total cost incurred. That the DRP has erred in rejecting the value o' power considered by the assessee on the basis TNM method at Rs 47,97,24,111/-and confirming addition of Rs 12,28,97,957/-. 6. The AO on the directions of DRP had erred both in fact