Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

54 results for “section 68”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi649 Mumbai588 Chennai245 Bangalore177 Kolkata176 Ahmedabad159 Jaipur120 Pune118 Hyderabad103 Chandigarh54 Raipur50 Indore50 Surat49 Visakhapatnam42 Rajkot39 Cuttack31 Cochin29 Nagpur22 Agra21 Allahabad20 Amritsar18 Lucknow16 Patna12 Guwahati10 Karnataka8 Jodhpur7 Dehradun6 Ranchi6 Varanasi5 Calcutta2 SC2 Panaji1 Jabalpur1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)43 Addition to Income38 Section 26332 Section 80I32 Section 14A30 Disallowance25 Section 13(3)24 Deduction15 Section 1014 Section 68

M/S YASHODHA MOTORS PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1601/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1601/Chd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rishi Kumar, JCIT

Section 250(6)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

68 of Income Tax Act. At no point of time during the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 was section 40A(2

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

13

Section 143(3)11

ITA 137/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 150(1)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions u/s 68 and 40A(3), and rejection of this ground by Id.CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the order under appeal, to the extent disputed herein, is against law and facts of the case. 3. A perusal

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

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

68. Further, the provisions of section 40A(3) are attracted only where a payment exceeding the prescribed monetary limit is made to a person in a single day, other than through banking channels. In the present case, the AO has not demonstrated that the payments to any individual employee exceeded the prescribed limit. Moreover, a portion of the salary

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)

Section 40A(3) of the Act; that therefore, the assessment order was an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which was rightly set aside by the ld. PCIT, remitting the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. 9.5. The first issue is as to whether it is a case of lack of enquiry, as held

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)

Section 40A(3) of the Act; that therefore, the assessment order was an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which was rightly set aside by the ld. PCIT, remitting the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. 9.5. The first issue is as to whether it is a case of lack of enquiry, as held

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)

Section 40A(3) of the Act; that therefore, the assessment order was an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which was rightly set aside by the ld. PCIT, remitting the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. 9.5. The first issue is as to whether it is a case of lack of enquiry, as held

A.K.MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, MANDI GOBIND GARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 251/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Now, the assessee is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that all the loans taken by the assessee were old loans on which interest was paid at the rate of 12% in the earlier years also, which

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

ITA 405/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 555/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 559/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 557/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 556/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 558/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 548/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 14Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

40A(2)(a), but there is no corresponding provision in respect of sales made to sister concerns. The department cannot compel a person to make profit out of every transaction since the department does not have any authority to, ask a person to maximize its profits. If the assessee chooses to give discount to someone, he is free

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 14Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

40A(2)(a), but there is no corresponding provision in respect of sales made to sister concerns. The department cannot compel a person to make profit out of every transaction since the department does not have any authority to, ask a person to maximize its profits. If the assessee chooses to give discount to someone, he is free

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

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian 20,59,27 8 2,83,000 4,62,572 25,66,84 4 4,00,00 0 2

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

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian 20,59,27 8 2,83,000 4,62,572 25,66,84 4 4,00,00 0 2

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 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian 20,59,27 8 2,83,000 4,62,572 25,66,84 4 4,00,00 0 2