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.

373 results for “section 68”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,788Mumbai2,454Kolkata1,108Jaipur720Bangalore626Ahmedabad585Hyderabad559Karnataka483Chennai423Chandigarh373Indore356Pune332Surat263Visakhapatnam243Rajkot214Cochin196Raipur138Agra132Lucknow127Guwahati111Nagpur93Patna80Calcutta72Cuttack67Amritsar60Allahabad57Telangana50Jodhpur37Ranchi34SC29Dehradun21Jabalpur21Panaji19Varanasi16Orissa5Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Section 26351Section 14846Section 143(3)39Section 6836Section 142(1)34Section 13232Section 153A31Section 143(2)26

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)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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)

Showing 1–20 of 373 · Page 1 of 19

...
Natural Justice15
Deduction13
Long Term Capital Gains9
Section 271(1)(c)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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)

142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that

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

142(1) alongwith show cause were issued during the course of assessment proceedings and thereafter considering the submissions of the assessee but not finding the same acceptable, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) dt. 27/09/2021 wherein the AO brought to tax the excess stock surrendered during the course of survey under section 69, unexplained capital

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 . ii) The assesse offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of assessing officer satisfactory. In this case survey was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 burden, coupled with 9 tell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed questionnaires under section 142

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 burden, coupled with 9 tell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed questionnaires under section 142

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

142(1) were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO also issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.02.2021 stating that as per the Surrender Letter, the Assessee has made a surrender for a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000 on account of difference in stock and the Assessee was also asked to explain the reasons for excess

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

142(1) of the Act alongwith detail questionnaire dt. 23/01/2021 was also issued to the assessee. In response to the above captioned notice, the assessee has filed with the Income Tax Authorities detailed reply from time to time, wherein the assessee has duly stated that his nature of business is manufacturing PVC pipes and hence, it is evident that other

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

68,63,786/- under Section 69A/69C of the Act. 5. In the Ld. AO order No. ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1022600929(1)dt. 18/12/2019 following is observed and recorded: “Return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 28.06.2017 declaring business income at Rs. 62,860/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT. Act, 1961. The case was selected

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

142 or section 148; or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. 31. The aforementioned requirements of law must be held to be conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act in cases which are covered

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1203/CHANDI/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Feb 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 159Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act, on protective basis, since the entire cash deposit had been added in the hands of Smt. Rajinder Kaur on substantive basis. 4. Aggrieved by the same the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the assessment framed both on legal grounds as well as on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the contentions

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 939/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A'sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

68 burden, coupled with\ntell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed\nquestionnaires under section 142

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORP. LTD.,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in above terms

ITA 1369/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) On Various Grounds, Including Challenging The Reference Made By The Ao To Special Audit. The Ld.Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C.Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 142Section 143(3)

142(2A) OF THE I t Act 1961 for the assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 – reg. – ******* Please refer to the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2014-15 pending in this office. 2. In this regard, during the course of assessment proceedings you were asked to provide the information as per noting sheet entry dated 16.12.2016 vide your reply dated

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

142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaire. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a specific query relating to income surrendered during the course of survey. It was stated by the AO that during the course of survey, the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- in terms of surrender letter dt. 06/03/2019 on account

INCOME TAX OFICER, BC BAZAR vs. THE KESRI UNION FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, AMBALA

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/CHANDI/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2Section 3Section 5

section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith Annexure were issued on 19/07/2019, 03/09/2019 and 05/10/2019. 9. In response to above notices, society filed replies online through ITBA from time to time. The assessee society filed its Income Tax Return on 18.12.2019 declaring NIL income. It is also on record that further notice