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.

80 results for “section 68”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi856 Mumbai556 Karnataka466 Bangalore331 Ahmedabad184 Jaipur180 Hyderabad133 Chennai124 Kolkata115 Raipur96 Cochin84 Chandigarh80 Pune73 Indore57 Calcutta54 Panaji41 Surat40 Telangana32 Lucknow28 Nagpur27 Visakhapatnam23 Cuttack23 Allahabad21 SC20 Rajkot18 Amritsar13 Varanasi9 Guwahati7 Ranchi6 Agra5 Rajasthan5 Dehradun4 Orissa3 Jabalpur2 Jodhpur2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Andhra Pradesh1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A37 Section 13236 Section 40A(3)30 Addition to Income26 Section 14825 Section 13(3)24 Section 12718 Deemed Dividend17 Section 153D16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 308/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

Section 68 – Held, yes” Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT vs. Dharmesh Padamshibhal Patel as reported in 156

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

Section 68 – Held, yes” Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT vs. Dharmesh Padamshibhal Patel as reported in 156

SH. SANDEEP KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-4, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Singh, ITP and Shri M.P. S. Malhotra, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 206CSection 68

156 of 2010, dated June 29,2010 no addition under section 68 can be made in a case where

ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1353/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Samir Mahajan, CA and Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

section 143(2) was issued on 02/09/2014 by the Dy. CIT Circle1(1) Chandigarh 2 and served upon the assessee on 08/09/2014. Thereafter the case record was transferred to ITO Ward1(3) which was received on 26/05/2015. That further proceedings were taken up by issuing notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire on 11/06/2015 followed by on 30/07/2015. That

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

ITA 476/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: ShriRohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 263Section 44ASection 80T

156 bearing No. ITBA/AST/5/156/2021-22/1035457567(1) dated 10.09.2021 corroborates this fact too. 20. We hold that while it may be true and it is, as it appears that a return of income declaring total income of Rs.14,65,910.00 for AY 2019- 20 was filed on 12.06.2019 vide acknowledgement No. 501367120120120619 on 12.06.2019 with case selected for complete scrutiny under CASS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. ANUP BANSAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 671/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Sh. Anoop Bansal, Ward-1(5), बनाम Motia Marvel, Ludhiana Barewal Road, Backside, Vs. Gurudev Hospital, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ahgpb5674C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 156Section 37Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961), of Rs. 4,69,65,500/- 671-Chd-2024 Anup Bansal, Ludhiana 4 to the returned income of the assessee and taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A demand notice of Rs. 4,95,62,968/- u/s 156

SJVN LIMITED,SHIMLA HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT , SHIMLA

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

ITA 150/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

68,03,40,638/-. 3. Deduction u/s 80IA has not been considered while working out the Gross Total Income as per normal provisions of Income Tax. 4. Credit u/s 115JAA has been taken as Rs. 55,49,51,164/- instead of Rs. 90,64,10,578/-. 6. The application so filed by the assessee u/s 154 was considered and partly

SH. AVINASH RAJTA,SHIMLA vs. ITO, WARD, SHIMLA

In the result, out of addition of Rs 365,132/-, addition of Rs 3,33,385/- is deleted and the remaining addition of Rs 31,747/- is sustained and the ground of appeal is thus partly allowed

ITA 654/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 654/CHD/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Avinash Rajta Chauhan Cottage, Dhalli Near Inder Nagar, Shimla H.P. 171012 बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:ASGPR5069J अपीलार्थी/Appellant The ITO Ward- Shimla H.P. 171001 प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Advocate Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronounceme

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 143Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Date Amount 11.11.2016 Rs. 3,27,500/- 15.11.2016 Rs. 4,13,000/- 16.11.2016 Rs. 1,61,000/- 17.11.2016 Rs. 1,18,500/- 1.5. The entire cash deposits had been routed through the books of accounts. Perusal of the cash book for the assessment year under consideration would go to reveal that cash

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1328/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Sumisha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

68 days which is not an inordinate long period is condoned. In the result, the delay in filing the cross- objection is condoned and the same is hereby admitted for necessary adjudication. 26. Now, coming to the various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its cross-objection so filed, it is noted that the assessee has effectively challenged

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

ITA 438/CHANDI/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

156. - Fact that document at page 32 is titled as "Income Tax Computation" will change its status as not being an order of assessment. Key ingredients of an assessment order are determination of "total income" and "tax payable". Both these ingredients present. "Income Tax Computation" signed by AO is also part of an order of assessment. {Reference Kalyankumar

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., PATIALA

ITA 446/CHANDI/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

156. - Fact that document at page 32 is titled as "Income Tax Computation" will change its status as not being an order of assessment. Key ingredients of an assessment order are determination of "total income" and "tax payable". Both these ingredients present. "Income Tax Computation" signed by AO is also part of an order of assessment. {Reference Kalyankumar

JCIT(OSD), C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPERS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd., Circle-1(1), Sco 18-19, 1St Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadca2231K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Add.CITFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Krishan, Adv

156/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2012-13 and depreciation of Rs.2,54,68,683/- has been allowed in A.Y. 2013-14. The WDV as on 01.04.2013 amounts to Rs.14,43,22,535/- on which depreciation allowable for the year under consideration comes to Rs.2,16,48,380/- as against depreciation of Rs.2,33,55,272/- claimed by the assessee