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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi58Jaipur57Mumbai41Hyderabad27Chennai26Karnataka21Ahmedabad19Kolkata14Pune13Indore12Visakhapatnam11Agra9Bangalore9Chandigarh8Surat7Rajkot5Cuttack3Jabalpur2Nagpur2Amritsar1Ranchi1SC1Lucknow1Varanasi1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 271D30Section 271E15Penalty7Section 269S5Section 683Addition to Income3Cash Deposit2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

271D of Income Tax Act. It was explained during the assessment proceedings that the provisions of section 269SS are applicable only to the transactions of loans and advances and the amount received towards allotment of shares which has been duly reflected as such as share application money in the audited accounts of the assessee in Note

SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 195/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

PREMJIT KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-4, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1595/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Him

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded further to conclude that the aforesaid commodity transactions were done through the account of the assessee without any broker licence etc. and therefore, the said transactions were not legal and under the circumstances, money could be treated as advance in cash by the said persons to the assessee

M/S GAGANDEEP ICE & COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD,,SIRHIND vs. ITO, WARD SIRHIND HQ, MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

ITA 1079/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in having confirmed the action of the AO in referring the matter to the Addl. CIT for consideration of imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act by holding that the assessee company received share application money