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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai172 Delhi151 Jaipur48 Hyderabad47 Ahmedabad39 Indore33 Kolkata32 Chennai28 Nagpur19 Raipur18 Surat17 Bangalore15 Pune14 Chandigarh11 Lucknow10 Guwahati9 Rajkot9 Jodhpur8 Visakhapatnam3 Karnataka3 Patna3 Agra3 Cochin1 Amritsar1 Allahabad1 Cuttack1

Key Topics

Addition to Income10 Limitation/Time-bar9 Section 50C3 Section 2632 Section 682

NEERU ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 60/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 53A

1) inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, the stamp valuation as on the date of the agreement (20.02.2010) should be adopted since the entire sale consideration was received by account payee cheques before that date. 10. The assessee also contended that once the valuation adopted by the AO was objected to, the AO was legally bound under section 50C

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 319/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 345/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 320/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.322/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

68,979 (19,33,202-3,64,223) Claim of Assessee in his computation : 15.01,269 Difference : 67,710 (assessee may correct the figure) (B) Investment in resl. Property (3113) taken at Rs. 2,17,35,000 (without renovation claim of 10,15,000) Deduction eligibility : 2,17,35,000x2,04,51,233/2,51,25,000=1

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.1358/Chandi/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 250Section 68

1,65,500/-. Once the assessee has furnished the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and after admitting the same, the Ld. CIT(A) has called for remand report from the Assessing officer, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), in our view, ought to have looked into these documents. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and going