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.

244 results for “section 68”+ Section 139clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,226 Mumbai1,715 Jaipur706 Kolkata629 Bangalore590 Karnataka511 Chennai490 Ahmedabad417 Hyderabad315 Surat259 Chandigarh244 Pune223 Indore216 Cochin156 Visakhapatnam132 Nagpur123 Rajkot121 Agra98 Amritsar90 Raipur79 Lucknow73 Guwahati72 Calcutta54 Jodhpur53 Cuttack52 Patna45 Telangana39 Allahabad27 SC23 Varanasi14 Ranchi13 Jabalpur12 Panaji8 Rajasthan7 Dehradun7 Orissa5 Gauhati1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 26380 Section 153A79 Addition to Income49 Section 40A(3)36 Section 143(2)35 Section 143(3)34 Section 13234 Section 14830 Section 153C27

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

Showing 1–20 of 244 · Page 1 of 13

...

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & & &, SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 154Section 68

sections Further, in terms of amended provisions of s. 1158BE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment Act), 2016, it provides that where the total income of the assessee includes any income referred to in s. 68, s. 69, s. 69A, s. 698, s. 69C or s. 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under s 139

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 454/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT -DR

Section 115BSection 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 69Section 69C

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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

68, section 69, section69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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

68, section 69, section69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

SHRI HARISH SHARMA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/CHANDI/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2021AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Laganpreet Sidhu, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

68, section 69, section 69A, section (a) 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

SHRI BHUWAN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1385/CHANDI/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2020AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel

Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel

Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel

Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating