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.

623 results for “section 68”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,442Delhi7,411Kolkata2,118Bangalore2,011Chennai1,717Ahmedabad1,651Jaipur1,271Hyderabad1,141Pune975Chandigarh623Surat613Indore568Karnataka406Cochin378Rajkot365Visakhapatnam324Raipur307Nagpur217Lucknow208Guwahati190Agra188Cuttack182Amritsar164Ranchi116Jodhpur113Patna111Calcutta98Telangana98Panaji86Allahabad84Dehradun62SC60Jabalpur51Varanasi36Rajasthan16Kerala12Orissa8Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26371Addition to Income67Section 143(3)37Disallowance29Section 271D25Section 40A(3)23Section 14821Section 250(6)19Section 3615

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

business. Once the income as been assessed u/s 69B of the Act, the same is to be subjected to tax rates as provided under amended provision of section 115BBE of the Act, as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Provisions of section 115BBE state that where total income of the assessee includes any income referred in section 68

Showing 1–20 of 623 · Page 1 of 32

...
Section 271E15
Deduction15
Limitation/Time-bar14

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

business. Once the income as been assessed u/s 69 of the Act, the same is to be subjected to tax rates as provided under amended provision of section 115BBE of the Act, as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Provisions of section 115BBE state that where total income of the assessee includes any income referred in section 68

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

business income and more so Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) duly telescoped with unrecorded sales of Rs.23,35,000.00. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in law to hold the entry of Rs.50,00,000.00 in capital account (Rs.25,00,000.00 each partner) covered u/s 68 instead of section

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69

business income. It was accordingly submitted that the nature and source of the income clearly stands explained and the provisions of Section 68

MRS. KIRAN BALA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would

M/S VEER ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 255/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

business income. 4. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in law to hold and assess the income in accordance to provision of Section 68

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 51/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 54/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

business and after duly considering the order of the ITSC and Rule 9 Report. It has been submitted that, even otherwise, the explanation relating to the source of income has no role to play in ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 13 context of the provisions

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would

M/S AMARJIT & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of the additions has made by the Assessing Officer. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter any of the above grounds during the appellate proceedings have been considered. 3. Briefly the facts of case are that the assessee is engaged in the business

M/S A.P. KNIT FAB,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That During The Course Of Survey, No Other Income Was Noticed By The Department And, As Such, Taxing The Amount Offered As Deemed Income, Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 5. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Failed To Appreciate That At The Time Of Survey, It Was Agreed That The Applicant Shall Pay The Taxes On The Amount Offered

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would