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.

38 results for “section 68”+ Section 78clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,823Mumbai2,444Bangalore789Kolkata677Karnataka616Chennai606Ahmedabad600Jaipur490Hyderabad407Surat314Indore281Chandigarh274Cochin239Pune235Raipur162Visakhapatnam99Nagpur88Rajkot87Telangana87Agra85Guwahati78Cuttack78Lucknow77Calcutta62Allahabad47SC43Amritsar38Jodhpur29Ranchi22Patna21Rajasthan10Orissa8Kerala7Jabalpur5Dehradun5Panaji4Varanasi4Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)46Addition to Income35Section 153A32Section 6828Section 26318Section 80P(4)15Section 25014Section 6911Section 250(6)11Deduction

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, 69 to 69D of the Act to create a deeming fiction to tax any sum already credited / offered as income. Such recourse is unwarranted within the objectives to introduce this section 115BBE of the Act. The objects and reasons for amending the section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 was to prevent misuse

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

9
Disallowance7
Bogus Purchases6

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

78%\nincluding surcharge 25% and cess 4%]. In this regard your Honor's kind attention is drawn\ntowards the fact that the appellant has already offered a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the\nhead business income and has paid taxes amounting to Rs. 15,60,000/- which is higher than\nthe tax liability

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

ITA 255/ASR/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. Inderjit Paul (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 184(2)Section 420Section 68

78-79), making an addition u/s. 68 for Rs.2 lacs, besides another for Rs.1,988, being the interest allowed to partners (in view of 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

section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. That the order is bad in law and on facts. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 3. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred

SHRI HARVINER SINGH ,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 98/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.98/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Shri Harvinder Singh Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pathankot S/O Shri Sohan Singh, C/O M/S Janta Auto Trading Co. Dalhousie Road, Pathankot स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Panno. : Aceps 5287 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate & Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 68Section 80I

68 are not applicable in the instant case as there are no cash credits which are appearing in the books of account and as such application of wrong provisions of the Act not remotely connected is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IS erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 10/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

78,571/- iii. Receipts of vegetables Rs 5,00,000/- & animal fodder iv. Cash withdrawals from Rs. 67,16,786/- KCC premium CC a/c Total cash available = Rs. 103,72,036 /- as on 17.06.2013^ Therefore, Sh. Amandeep Singh had cash in hand available at more than Rs. 1 crore as on 17.06.2013 immediately before depositing cash

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

78,000/- (-) Rs.2,15,000/-} was taken as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account and added back with the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Also, Rs.3 lac was calculated for agricultural income @ 50,000/- per acre total for 6 acre which is worked out to Rs.3 lac. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 46/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

68 and 69 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in the case in ignoring the section of the Assessing Officer, in his remand report, wherein he pointed out a number: of credit entries which did not tally with submission of the assessee and were not verifiable

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 65/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

68 and 69 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in the case in ignoring the section of the Assessing Officer, in his remand report, wherein he pointed out a number: of credit entries which did not tally with submission of the assessee and were not verifiable

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

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were

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

78 and there is no appeal by the department against that order and copy of that order of CIT(A) has been placed at APB pages 47 to 51. Thus, on the basis of consistency also, addition is liable to be deleted besides the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suraj Dev Dada and of Kolkata High

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

78 and there is no appeal by the department against that order and copy of that order of CIT(A) has been placed at APB pages 47 to 51. Thus, on the basis of consistency also, addition is liable to be deleted besides the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suraj Dev Dada and of Kolkata High

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

78 (P&H), where the credit was for 55 days only, held that the provision of s. 2(22)(e), which was to stop the misuse by taking funds out of the company by way of a loan or advance instead of dividend and, thereby, avoid tax, could be invoked. Similar view, it was submitted, was expressed

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 192/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

68 to 78) dated 30.09.2005 and a copy of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 12.11.2009 inter- alia containing decision in respect of Civil Writ Petition No. 3673 of 1983, APB page 73-122. The matter was taken-up by the seller of the land before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, where in, the case

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

68 of the Act must only be in the hands of the M/s Vasudev Sales Corporation and not in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and such amount of sales have been recorded in the regular books of accounts. The ld. AO has only doubted the cash as deposited in the books

THE KOT RAM DASS COOP. THIRFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 86/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 273/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 238/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

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

78,05,790 on November 30, 2018. In response to the same, the Assessee received a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessee, during the course of the assessment proceedings, submitted the relevant information/ documents as called upon by the Ld. AO from time-to-time. The Assessee is acompany incorporated under Companies

ANBHAO PARKASH S/O DARSHAN LAL, VILLAGE VEERE WALA KALAN, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD 1, FARIDKAOT, FARIDKOT

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

ITA 630/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 69

Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 the registration of agreement to prove the transaction genuine, is not mandatory. (Copy of the same is enclosed at page 68-71 of Paper Book.) 13. In this regard, it is hereby submitted that Ld. CIT-(A) has not considered the source as explained by the assessee only on account that the agreement