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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 140Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai33Karnataka25Hyderabad24Jaipur21Delhi19Amritsar11Pune9Kolkata8Chennai6Ahmedabad3Chandigarh3Cochin2Bangalore2Varanasi2SC1

Key Topics

Section 27118Section 271A9Section 2743Section 1543Business Income3Penalty3Addition to Income3Undisclosed Income3

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1529/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

68,413/-. 2.1 The assessee had moved an application before the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 contending that there was some mistake in the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.09.2019. There has been an order of the ITAT in quantum appeal, wherein, certain additions have been deleted. The remaining surrendered 3 amount

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

ITA 344/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

68,413/-. 2.1 The assessee had moved an application before the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 contending that there was some mistake in the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.09.2019. There has been an order of the ITAT in quantum appeal, wherein, certain additions have been deleted. The remaining surrendered 3 amount

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

ITA 343/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

68,413/-. 2.1 The assessee had moved an application before the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 contending that there was some mistake in the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order, dated 26.09.2019. There has been an order of the ITAT in quantum appeal, wherein, certain additions have been deleted. The remaining surrendered 3 amount