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.

35 results for “section 68”+ Section 292Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi412Mumbai145Hyderabad124Bangalore121Jaipur115Chennai102Surat40Indore39Pune38Kolkata38Chandigarh35Rajkot24Visakhapatnam21Nagpur20Ahmedabad15Amritsar14Jodhpur8Allahabad6Lucknow3Raipur2Karnataka1Guwahati1Agra1Patna1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A67Section 153C59Addition to Income28Section 13227Section 115B23Section 69A17Section 143(2)11Section 58Section 153D7Survey u/s 133A

SHRI BHUWAN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1385/CHANDI/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2020AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69

292C of the Income Tax Act 1961 drawing the presumption that the contents of the books of accounts and other documents found during the course of search are presumed to be true and since income from real estate business was regularly recorded in the diary/note book found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

5
Set Off of Losses4
Limitation/Time-bar4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA, BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 926/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

section 292C? 3. Weather the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,59,911/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA , BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 773/CHANDI/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

section 292C? 3. Weather the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,59,911/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1105/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1107/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1104/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1103/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

ITA 774/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253Section 68

68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rest of the pleas taken by the Department are peripheral arguments in support of this central point. We have taken note of the fact while adjudicating the Cross Objections. It emerges out from the record that a search was carried out at the premises of the assessee

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 109/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 110/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 111/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 105/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 106/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 107/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 108/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

292C of the Act. 11.7 The ld CIT(A) accordingly held that it is thus, established that the assessee firm has sold plot no. 10,11, 168 and 169 @ Rs. 6500-7000 per sq yard during the year under consideration. It is also logical to infer that when the consideration as per books of account (part of sales) has been

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

292C of the Act. 11.7 The ld CIT(A) accordingly held that it is thus, established that the assessee firm has sold plot no. 10,11, 168 and 169 @ Rs. 6500-7000 per sq yard during the year under consideration. It is also logical to infer that when the consideration as per books of account (part of sales) has been

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. SATGURU FOUNDATION(REGD)., MUKTSAR

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 491, 493 & 494/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Central Circle, Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Patiala. Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2011-12 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Patiala. Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishekl Pal Garg, CIT DR
Section 147

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. SATGURU FOUNDATION(REGD.), MUKTSAR

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed

ITA 493/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 491, 493 & 494/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Central Circle, Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Patiala. Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2011-12 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Patiala. Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishekl Pal Garg, CIT DR
Section 147

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission