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.

156 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,418 Delhi934 Jaipur342 Kolkata247 Chandigarh156 Bangalore146 Chennai143 Ahmedabad138 Indore115 Hyderabad111 Surat107 Pune97 Visakhapatnam60 Rajkot51 Raipur43 Lucknow37 Guwahati31 Nagpur28 Agra25 Cochin23 Jodhpur20 Amritsar19 Ranchi16 Jabalpur7 Dehradun6 Cuttack5 Calcutta5 Allahabad4 SC4 Karnataka4 Varanasi3 Patna3 Panaji1 Kerala1 Telangana1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68 Section 6862 Section 13260 Section 153A57 Section 115B50 Section 69C38 Section 250(6)33 Section 6925 Section 26324 Survey u/s 133A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 154Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of the Act in the order

Showing 1–20 of 156 · Page 1 of 8

...

22

Business Income19

Deemed Dividend17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 54/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 51/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 454/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT -DR

Section 115BSection 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 69Section 69C

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C and the income referred therein is chargeable to tax at rate prescribed under

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

69C must fall because section 68 is deleted cannot help the appellant; since I uphold section 68, the corollary

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

69C must fall because section 68 is deleted cannot help the appellant; since I uphold section 68, the corollary

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

68, section 69, section 69A, section (a) 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected

SHRI HARISH SHARMA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/CHANDI/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2021AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Laganpreet Sidhu, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69

68 or Section 69 or Section 69A or Section 69B or Section 69C or Section