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(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai171 Delhi148 Hyderabad48 Jaipur47 Ahmedabad39 Kolkata32 Indore31 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

5. The assessee filed replies dated 10.02.2023 and 24.02.2023, inter alia, submitting that the property had been sold pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 20.02.2010 and that possession was handed over and the entire sale consideration of Rs.88,00,000/- was received through banking channels during A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee relied on section 53A of the Transfer

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. So far as the loan of Rs. 47,50,000/- received by the assessee from brother Shri Harish Gupta is concentred, the assessee has 6 I.T.A. No.1358/CHANDI/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta duly proved the sale of the property of Rs. 90 lacs out of which 50% share

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

50C and the share of the assessee, minus Index Cost and the purchase cost, deduction claimed u/s 54F referring to page 10 of the Paper Book, it was submitted, was Rs.56,94,658/-. The investment in house property u/s 54F, it was submitted, was of Rs. 72,50,000/-. Inviting attention to copy of the Purchase Deed appended at pages