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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi657Mumbai174Calcutta136Kolkata92Karnataka55Jaipur52Chennai51Bangalore40Ahmedabad34Hyderabad23Telangana19Nagpur17Cochin15Lucknow13Raipur11SC11Chandigarh7Surat7Indore5Amritsar5Kerala4Cuttack4Visakhapatnam3Allahabad3Jodhpur3Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1Orissa1Agra1Patna1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 250(6)6Section 143(3)4Section 684Section 1484Deduction4Section 1943Addition to Income3Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 80I2

M/S BASSI STEELS LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

ITA 96/CHANDI/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok GoelFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 148Section 68

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is "a fortiori". For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee-company filed a return of loss which was processed under section 143(1) accepting the loss. Subsequently, based on a letter from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) regarding entry operators/ accommodation providers, informing the Assessing Officer that there were

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 2632
Disallowance2
Business Income2
ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
29 Oct 2025
AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

68 of the Act when there is no credit entry in records of the assessee. On the contrary, the amount has been deducted and not credited in the assessee’s books of account. As rightly contended by the assessee, it was incumbent upon the learned PCIT to make at least a minimal enquiry and apply his mind before invoking revisionary

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)

68 to 71, paras 8 to 12. * Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd vs ACIT reported in 216 Taxman 238(Bom) copy enclosed at pages 95 to 98 of PB - relevant conclusions at page 97, para 6.” 12. We are not convinced with the arguments of the Ld. counsel for assessee

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)

68 to 71, paras 8 to 12. * Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd vs ACIT reported in 216 Taxman 238(Bom) copy enclosed at pages 95 to 98 of PB - relevant conclusions at page 97, para 6.” 12. We are not convinced with the arguments of the Ld. counsel for assessee

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Maan (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80G

68,227/-. 2. That order dated 19/12/2018 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file inasmuch as she was not justified to treat the amount paid to persons covered u/s 13(3) as excessive by treating the rate of interest

ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. M/S JAMNA AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

68,012 MT and total sales of 67,844 MT, in assessment year 2009-10. Since the assessee was facing an acute shortage of funds in the second half of assessment year 2009-10, it could not honour its commitment to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,65,00,000/- to Smt. Poonam Gupta by 30.11.2008, the due date

ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. M/S JAMNA AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 690/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

68,012 MT and total sales of 67,844 MT, in assessment year 2009-10. Since the assessee was facing an acute shortage of funds in the second half of assessment year 2009-10, it could not honour its commitment to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,65,00,000/- to Smt. Poonam Gupta by 30.11.2008, the due date