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.

26 results for “section 68”+ Section 276clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi487Karnataka442Mumbai346Bangalore149Ahmedabad116Kolkata93Jaipur90Chennai58Hyderabad54Indore40Allahabad30Chandigarh26Rajkot21Calcutta18Cochin17Patna14Surat13SC12Nagpur9Raipur8Cuttack7Agra6Guwahati6Pune6Telangana6Visakhapatnam5Jodhpur5Rajasthan5Amritsar3Lucknow3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 26326Section 153A16Addition to Income14Section 14A11Disallowance11Section 143(3)10Section 143(2)8Section 1327Section 80I7

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 145/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it required to examine the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from who's amounts have been received and genuineness of the transactions on merit considering each credit separately. The AO has not discussed each and cred separately on merits in the assessment order before drawing the inference that the credits were unexplained

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

Section 69B6
Depreciation5
Limitation/Time-bar4

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

ITA 5/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it required to examine the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from who's amounts have been received and genuineness of the transactions on merit considering each credit separately. The AO has not discussed each and cred separately on merits in the assessment order before drawing the inference that the credits were unexplained

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

68, read with Section 115BBE. The absence of independent inquiry led the Pr. CIT to determine that the assessment order was again erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 5.4 Upon examining the Balance Sheet and its schedules, the Pr. CIT also found a discrepancy of Rs. 17,50,000 in the closing stock value of four flats. Although

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68,276

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI, CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2 CHD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65B

section 127of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n5.2 Accordingly, assessment in the case under consideration\nhas been made u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated\n31.03.2022 by the Ld. A.O.\n5.3 During the course of assessment for AY 2020-21, total\naddition of Rs.85,68,276

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

ITA 1165/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65B

section 127of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n5.2 Accordingly, assessment in the case under consideration\nhas been made u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated\n31.03.2022 by the Ld. A.O.\n5.3 During the course of assessment for AY 2020-21, total\naddition of Rs.85,68,276

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 10 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 10 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68

WORLD LEADERS ORGANISATION,GURGAON vs. COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1398/CHANDI/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Tejasvi JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Mohan Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 8

section u/s 2(15) of the I..Act is being pursued. ITA 1398/CHD/2016 Page 3 of 7 3.1 It was his submission that admittedly sufficient opportunity was provided, accordingly admission of fresh evidences was objected to. Commenting upon the evidences of the activities carried out by the assessee, it was his submission that apparently only two conferences were stated

HIMACHAL PRADESH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY ,HAMIRPUR vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 115/CHANDI/2020[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10

276 and another decision in case of Visvescaraya Technological University (2016) 384 ITR 37. 16. Further, reference was drawn to the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in case of Maa Saraswati Educational Trust (2013) 353 ITR 312 wherein their Lordship have held that generating surplus and accumulation of income will not disqualify an institution for the benefits

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 369/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

276/- and consultancy charges by holding the same are income derived from manufacturing an article or thing?. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law by deleting the addition made by the A.O. as profit from sale of components bought from outside of Rs. 1,07,07,456/- was ineligible for deduction u/s 80IB

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

68,12,209/- and the expenditure assumed and considered by ld. AO is Rs.71,22,923/- . The amount of Rs.6949470/-/6812209/- is accepted and 50% of it comes to Rs.34,37,627/- which is added by ld. CIT(A) and considered. The difference between Rs.71,22,923/- -6949470/- comes to Rs.1,73,452/- and therefore the opening balance according

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

68,12,209/- and the expenditure assumed and considered by ld. AO is Rs.71,22,923/- . The amount of Rs.6949470/-/6812209/- is accepted and 50% of it comes to Rs.34,37,627/- which is added by ld. CIT(A) and considered. The difference between Rs.71,22,923/- -6949470/- comes to Rs.1,73,452/- and therefore the opening balance according

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

68,12,209/- and the expenditure assumed and considered by ld. AO is Rs.71,22,923/- . The amount of Rs.6949470/-/6812209/- is accepted and 50% of it comes to Rs.34,37,627/- which is added by ld. CIT(A) and considered. The difference between Rs.71,22,923/- -6949470/- comes to Rs.1,73,452/- and therefore the opening balance according

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

68,12,209/- and the expenditure assumed and considered by ld. AO is Rs.71,22,923/- . The amount of Rs.6949470/-/6812209/- is accepted and 50% of it comes to Rs.34,37,627/- which is added by ld. CIT(A) and considered. The difference between Rs.71,22,923/- -6949470/- comes to Rs.1,73,452/- and therefore the opening balance according

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

276. It is stated that exemption had been granted to the assessee u/s 11 from the A.Y. 1991-92 consistently for twenty six years. There is absolutely no change of circumstances and there was no occasion for a different approach to be taken for the assessment year in question when the activities have continued uninterruptedly since the time of inception

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

68,771/-) is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee as being the expenditure not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and is added back to the total income of the assessee." 13. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submissions dt. 14.12.2017 which