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.

268 results for “section 68”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,965Mumbai2,712Kolkata1,163Chennai755Jaipur668Ahmedabad572Bangalore523Hyderabad424Chandigarh268Indore264Surat252Pune226Rajkot176Cochin159Nagpur146Raipur134Visakhapatnam94Lucknow88Guwahati77Amritsar64Calcutta54Allahabad49Jodhpur48Patna47Cuttack46Agra46Panaji35Ranchi23Jabalpur20Dehradun17Varanasi13Telangana12Karnataka12SC8Rajasthan4Orissa3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income89Section 115B50Section 6846Section 153A42Section 69A37Section 13232Section 143(3)31Section 14831Section 143(2)27

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

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

Showing 1–20 of 268 · Page 1 of 14

...
Survey u/s 133A14
Long Term Capital Gains11
Business Income11

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 of the Act, being unexplained cash receipts that do not fall within the definition of "income from other sources". v) M/s SVS Oils Mills Vs The ACIT on 26.3.2019 in the High court of Judicature at Madras Wherein it is stated that there is a series of five provisions viz., Section 69- Unexplained investments. Section 69A-Unexplained money

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 of the Act, being unexplained cash receipts that do not fall within the definition of "income from other sources". (v) M/s SVS Oils Mills Vs The ACIT on 26.3.2019 in the High court of Judicature at Madras Wherein it is stated that there is a series of five provisions viz.. Section 69-Unexplained investments, Section 69A-Unexplained money

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 and section 69D of the Act shows that for invoking such provisions, the learned Assessing Officer shall reach a conclusion that the assessee has not offered any explanation about the nature and source of the unexplained money

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

unexplained investment in hospital renovation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the returned income after due verification of the books of accounts and relevant documents. However, the PCIT, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263, set aside the assessment order, holding that the AO failed to examine the nature of the surrendered income and erroneously

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 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139;" The section 115BBE referred the section of 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, these sections speaks about the unexplained investment/ expenditure etc. (i) This Section is applicable where assessee's income is recorded in books

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH vs. SANBIR SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Singla, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 148

68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the sum of Rs.35,00,000/- is treated as unexplained ;ash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly tax on such unexplained income is computed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. ITA 455/CHD/2023 & C.O. 2/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 13 14.1 The Department has not been

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

unexplained investment as deemed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SECTION 68 vs. 69 The AR has contended that the addition in capital account is not covered u/s 69 and there is no justification in accordance with provisions of law to assess the same as deemed income u/s 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. A show-cause

RAJIV GOYAL, PATIALA,PATIALA, PUNJAB vs. JAO ITO WARD-3, PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A) have not been considered properly.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 68Section 69

unexplained credit u/s 68 and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 It was the contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he has furnished the confirmations of the lenders, alongwith their PAN Numbers, copy of the relevant Bank statement of the lender and copy of their ITRs and, thus, according

RACHIT AGGARWAL (PROP.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & CO.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD II(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 858/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.Krishnan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234BSection 271ASection 68

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on surmises and conjectures and ignoring the documents and details tax audit report submitted on record; 3. initiating proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act; 4. charging interest u/s 234B, C and D of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee deals in wholesale trade of karyana goods

SH. RAJNEESH THAKUR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1565/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriSudhirSehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriAtulJayaswal, Sr. Dr
Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

unexplained credits relating to the impugned year only as incomes as interpreted in various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts pointed out by Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us which the Revenue has been unable to distinguish.For this reason alone the addition made under section 68 of the said advances of Rs. 61,00000 is liable to be deleted. Further

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 26/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money

M/S OSWAL TREND (P) LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C. C.-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 429/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money

M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C.C.- 1, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 432/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money

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

unexplained credits. In accommodation-entry cases dealing with sham LTCG, courts have repeatedly approved taxing the gross receipts where the whole edifice is found non-genuine On these facts, the AO rightly taxed Rs. 28,30,02,558/- under section 68. 10. The section 69C addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- represents the embedded cost to procure accommodation entries

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

unexplained credits. In accommodation-entry cases dealing with sham LTCG, courts have repeatedly approved taxing the gross receipts where the whole edifice is found non-genuine On these facts, the AO rightly taxed Rs. 28,30,02,558/- under section 68. 10. The section 69C addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- represents the embedded cost to procure accommodation entries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the act of the lender companies as well as without considering the facts of the case? 2. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete the addition made by the A.O. on account of interest payments made to Highrise Securities & Trading