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 3Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai230Delhi138Bangalore91Chandigarh50Chennai46Kolkata45Karnataka32Visakhapatnam28Jaipur27Indore24Pune21Raipur19Ahmedabad15Lucknow13Hyderabad13Cochin12Surat12SC10Rajkot9Cuttack5Telangana4Nagpur4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Agra1Ranchi1Jabalpur1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)3Section 683Section 143(3)2Section 2502

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

68 ITR 573 (SC); CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). The reference by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, to decisions in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC) in this regard is also

SHRI ABDUL RASHID BUTT,KISHTWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, JAMMU

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

ITA 144/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 144/Asr/2022 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The assessee has taken the following revised grounds: 1. That learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by sustaining the addition made by AO amounting to Rs. 36708767/-. 2. That learned CIT (A) has erred