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.

523 results for “section 68”+ Section 249(4)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai555Delhi523Karnataka487Ahmedabad149Kolkata135Bangalore129Jaipur115Chennai67Chandigarh56Indore54Hyderabad54Pune53Surat41Raipur39Nagpur37Guwahati17Calcutta17Cochin16Visakhapatnam14Lucknow14Rajkot11Telangana9Varanasi8Agra7Amritsar7Dehradun7SC7Ranchi6Panaji5Rajasthan4Cuttack4Patna3Allahabad3Jodhpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Disallowance51Section 6844Section 143(1)35Section 14831Section 14729Section 143(3)29Bogus Purchases28Section 69B26Unexplained Investment

AP GOYAL CHARITABLE TRUST,EAST DELHI, DELHI INDIA vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2038/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 249(4)

68 and provisions of section 115BBE of the Act also invoked. Further addition of Rs. 7,500/- was also made as Income from Other Sources. 3. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dt. 27.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not admitting the same in terms of section

Showing 1–20 of 523 · Page 1 of 27

...
26
Section 80I25
Section 271(1)(c)22

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

4 and Answer to Question No. 2 at page 5, Mr, Shri Chand has confirmed that he had entered into an agreement with the assessee for purchase of agricultural land and paid the amount to the assessee and also mentioned the purpose for which such agreement was entered. c. Mr. Likhi Ram (Brother of Assessee) As Per Answer to Question

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

249(4)(b). This is mandatory. This requirement has not been complied with. 24. However, we would not like to decide and dispose of the appeals on the present reasoning, in view of the questions of law that have been admitted above, which are on a different aspect. We have referred to the said Section as to clarify

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

ITA/847/2016HC Delhi28 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/269/2016HC Delhi27 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

ITA/396/2016HC Delhi26 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

ITA/323/2016HC Delhi31 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

ITA/297/2016HC Delhi06 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

ITA/241/2016HC Delhi06 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

ITA/151/2016HC Delhi23 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

ITA/134/2016HC Delhi15 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

BAL KISHAN TYAGI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

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

ITA 131/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Vs Ito, Bal Kishan Tyagi, Vill.-Sultanpur, Post-Gejha, Ward-1(2), Sector-128, Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh-201308 Pan-Afept3019H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year

Section 208Section 209Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

68 of The Act. 3) That without prejudice to the above contentions, on facts of the case and in law, the assessment made is illegal since: a) Mandatory notice/assessment should be issued/made by his jurisdiction officer, i.e. Ward 5(1)(2) but in hurry, it is issued byWard-1(2), Noida. b) As the jurisdiction over the assessee was different

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

4), however, the contract can be revoked before its acceptance is complete or acceptance may be revoked before the communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor but not afterwards (Section 5). It is submitted that in the present case both the parties have signed the agreement on 15.09.2009 and so, Section 5 of Indian Contract

ITO, WARD- 22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SAIVI FINANCE PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

249, 10-B, 1st Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, DDA SFS Pocket-A, New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, PAN AAACS1226P Delhi – 110 096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Department by : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/12/2023 Date of 26/02/2024 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed

SHRI JANAK GOEL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all, the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memo as well as the additional ground raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 938/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

4. The assessee submitted that appellant has submitted the main ground of appeal, thorough oversight this ground could not be raised. He stated that subject matter of the additional ground has already been taken up in the assessment proceedings and the first appellate proceedings. The facts of additional grounds of appeal are already there in the other grounds of appeal

HIMALAYAN DAIRIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 11(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 3361/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishihimalayan Dairies Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 10, C-1/2, Model Town, Ward-11(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaach0252J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

249 ITR 216.” 3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:- “1. That the learned AO and the CIT (A) erred on facts and on law wherein invoking the provisions of section 68 in the present set of transactions wherein no actual amount of money was ever received by the assessee while conducting the transaction during

XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1477/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv & Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 40(2)(b)

249/- interest income earned from short term fixed deposits by considering the same as income from other sources 2. Addition to “interest on short-term fixed deposits’ on 1,02,261 account of reconciliation with TDS certificates and taxing it as ‘Income from Other Sources’. 3. Reduction in deduction claimed under section

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

4 of 59 5. Ld DR submitted that this ground of appeal is identical to the grounds of appeal on the similar issue in case of Vardaan Fashion for AY 2007-08. He further submitted that nature of addition, parties involved, the alleged modus operandi and all other features of the addition are same except the amount of addition. Therefore

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. INDERPAL SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

4 of 59 5. Ld DR submitted that this ground of appeal is identical to the grounds of appeal on the similar issue in case of Vardaan Fashion for AY 2007-08. He further submitted that nature of addition, parties involved, the alleged modus operandi and all other features of the addition are same except the amount of addition. Therefore

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

4 of 59 5. Ld DR submitted that this ground of appeal is identical to the grounds of appeal on the similar issue in case of Vardaan Fashion for AY 2007-08. He further submitted that nature of addition, parties involved, the alleged modus operandi and all other features of the addition are same except the amount of addition. Therefore