Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

19 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,418 Delhi934 Jaipur342 Kolkata247 Chandigarh156 Bangalore146 Chennai143 Ahmedabad138 Indore115 Hyderabad111 Surat107 Pune97 Visakhapatnam60 Rajkot51 Raipur43 Lucknow37 Guwahati31 Nagpur28 Agra25 Cochin23 Jodhpur20 Amritsar19 Ranchi16 Jabalpur7 Dehradun6 Cuttack5 Calcutta5 Allahabad4 SC4 Karnataka4 Varanasi3 Patna3 Panaji1 Kerala1 Telangana1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 6824 Section 26324 Section 115B23 Section 14816 Section 143(3)15 Addition to Income14 Section 69A10 Section 2509 Section 69C8 Cash Deposit

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

6

Survey u/s 133A5

Business Income3

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 432/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 212/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vinay Jamwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

section 69C. The Tribunal has concurred with the said findings. As observed hereinabove, solely relying upon the statements of the Typist and the Chartered Accountant, the High Court has reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as 16 Asstt. CIT v. Mohd. Ashraf Sheikh the Tribunal. The High Court has also not properly appreciated and considered

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

AMIT SHARMA,BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh, C. A

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

68 whereas there was no sum found credited in books of assessee for which no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation was offered by Assessee. The above ground raised by the appellant is incorrect as the order has been passed correctly by following all the principles of natural justice. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 5.3 Ground No. 3-That the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) Assessee-company was engaged in manufacture of high-pressure seamless cylinders Pursuant to search and seizure operations of group concerns of assessee, Assessing Officer on basis of statement made by a director of assessee opined that assessee-company siphoned off cash by issuing cheques against bagus capital expenses debited

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

ITA 480/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

BALWINDER SINGH,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

section 68, 69, 694, 698 & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly

SMT. SANDEEP KAUR W/O SH SUKHPAL SINGH,MALOUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (5), MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 157/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 144oSection 250Section 69A

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act. 3. That CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the estimated addition of Rs. 4,510/- on account of alleged commission paid by resort to provisions of Section 69C

M/S IJM ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAKODAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.774/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Ijm Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Nakodar Railway Road, Nakodar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacci8557M

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shakil Ahmad, DR

Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act without considering the submissions of the assessee and without giving proper opportunity of being heard, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

69C of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal and delete the addition. Being aggrieved the revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT with the grievance that the ld. CIT(A) accepted the new documents which was not adjudicated by the ld. AO and the reasonable

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 84/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act and undisclosed interest amount of Rs.601/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee challenged the jurisdiction of assessment u/s I.T.A. No. 84/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 153C/143(3) framed by the ld. AO and the merit before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

ITA 702/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,84,212/- has been included in closing stock. .As such charge to trading account is. only. of Rs. 14,15,788/- & not Rs. 83,00,000/-. b) That amount of Rs. 83,00,000/- & 83,00,000/- & another amount surrendered total Rs. 1,20,00,000/-.have been duly declared in the return as detailed below:- Sr. No. Description