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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi487Karnataka465Mumbai464Bangalore121Chennai100Jaipur96Kolkata91Ahmedabad85Chandigarh47Surat44Hyderabad43Indore34Cochin31Pune28Nagpur18Raipur17Patna16Visakhapatnam16Calcutta16Telangana15Rajkot15SC13Cuttack12Lucknow10Guwahati8Allahabad8Agra7Kerala6Amritsar6Rajasthan4Varanasi4Jodhpur3Jabalpur1Ranchi1Orissa1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A5Addition to Income5Section 2504Section 143(3)4Section 2(22)(e)4Section 80G4Section 69B4Deemed Dividend2Cash Deposit2

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

ITA 511/ASR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri M. P. Singh (D.R.)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292CSection 69B

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.2,35,000/- deserves to be deleted. We thus ‘set aside’ the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.2,35,000/- sustained by him under Sec.68 of the Act. As we have quashed the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- that

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 542/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

68 cannot be sustained. Further, it was also submitted that ITO has not given any warning to the assessee/appellant herein before putting question to the assessee/appellant to the effect that any admission/confession can be used against him in any proceedings under the Act and its repercussion and, nor he was made aware of his right to engage lawyer

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

273 (P&H) “Held, that keeping in view the principle of consistency, the Revenue could not be permitted to raise an issue in isolation only for one year in the case of one assessee, while accepting the findings on the same issue in the case of other assesses and for other years in the case of assessee.” (Emphasis supplied

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

273 (P&H) “Held, that keeping in view the principle of consistency, the Revenue could not be permitted to raise an issue in isolation only for one year in the case of one assessee, while accepting the findings on the same issue in the case of other assesses and for other years in the case of assessee.” (Emphasis supplied

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

68,900/- Sundry creditors 2,26,611/- Sundry creditors (sq. up) 6,85,900/- Open. Balance (ICICI) 1,90,896/- Total: 18,83,196/- The same did not find favour with the Assessing Officer (AO), as the said detail was not supported by any documentary evidence. As against capital, the assessee had made advances, which were yielding him interest income

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)

273 ITR 475 (Raj.) d. MishrilalGordhanlal Batra charitable trust v/s Union of India (2008) 307 ITR 221(RAJ.). e. Umaid Charitable trust v/s Union of India (2008) 307 ITR 226 (RAJ.) f. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Social Service Centre (2001) 250 ITR 39 (AP) g. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs CCIT (2001) 251 ITR 849 (AP)“ 6. Registration u/s 12AA