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.

23 results for “section 68”+ Section 202clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi586Karnataka494Mumbai412Bangalore128Chennai114Jaipur82Ahmedabad81Kolkata77Rajkot56Hyderabad41Nagpur31Surat28Chandigarh23Raipur22Pune21Lucknow19Indore18Calcutta16Cuttack16Telangana15Amritsar8Visakhapatnam8Jodhpur7Ranchi6SC5Rajasthan4Guwahati4Dehradun3Patna2Allahabad2Cochin2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 13(3)24Section 14812Addition to Income11Exemption10Section 143(3)8Section 1518Section 686Reopening of Assessment6Section 1475

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

202,500 incurred, actually paid and claimed by the appellant on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating the details, documentary evidence and submissions furnished by the appellant and further disregarding the fact that the appellant has himself added back a sum of Rs. 25,000 out of the total car expenses in the computation of his total income. 8. That

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Bogus Purchases5
Section 69C4
Section 148B4

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

202, GH 68, Sector 20, Panchkula. The alleged sub-contractors firms have been used by the assessee company to book bogus expenses to bring down its overall profits. The relevant portions of the information are reproduced as under: " 4. During the course of search, Sh. Gurinder Kumar Garg was confronted with a sheet containing list of sub-contractors which

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 263

68,979 (19,33,202-3,64,223) Claim of Assessee in his computation : 15.01,269 Difference : 67,710 (assessee may correct the figure) (B) Investment in resl. Property (3113) taken at Rs. 2,17,35,000 (without renovation claim of 10,15,000) Deduction eligibility : 2,17,35,000x2,04,51,233/2

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1182/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

68,676/- 19.10.2015 Land 2. 245 Commercial 23.01.2015 1,54,53,202/- 15,45,320/- 1,39,07,882/- 10.07.2015 Land 5.2 The assessee appended note to the aforesaid details of the compensation received as under: Note: As per certificate from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition-cum-S.D.M. Sangrur, the above said Agriculture and Commercial Land had been

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

68,676/- 19.10.2015 Land 2. 245 Commercial 23.01.2015 1,54,53,202/- 15,45,320/- 1,39,07,882/- 10.07.2015 Land 5.2 The assessee appended note to the aforesaid details of the compensation received as under: Note: As per certificate from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition-cum-S.D.M. Sangrur, the above said Agriculture and Commercial Land had been

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

68 of the order.\n3.1 The grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

68 of the order.\n4\n3.1 The grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

68 of the order.\n\n4\n3.1\nThe grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

68 of the order.\n4\n3.1\nThe grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

68 STC 398 ; [1988] (Suppl.) SCC 308, (SC) • CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), • DIT vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists [2017] 84 taxmann.com 202 (Madras HC) • Jayam and company vs. Assistant Commissioner &Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 125 • Loknathgoenka [2019] 109 taxmann.com 203 (Patna) (FB) • Govind Das and others

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

68 STC 398 ; [1988] (Suppl.) SCC 308, (SC) • CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), • DIT vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists [2017] 84 taxmann.com 202 (Madras HC) • Jayam and company vs. Assistant Commissioner &Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 125 • Loknathgoenka [2019] 109 taxmann.com 203 (Patna) (FB) • Govind Das and others

M/S ROOP SQUARE PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CC-1, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68

68 of the Act was concerned, the AO had arrived at this figure after duly incorporating the forensic analysis of the seized hard disc from the business premises of the assessee, wherein the AO had noticed differences in sale bills date-wise as compared to the system date. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the tables produced

DCIT-CC-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S ROOP SQUARE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 249/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68

68 of the Act was concerned, the AO had arrived at this figure after duly incorporating the forensic analysis of the seized hard disc from the business premises of the assessee, wherein the AO had noticed differences in sale bills date-wise as compared to the system date. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the tables produced

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning