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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 1(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,606Mumbai9,542Kolkata3,197Bangalore2,578Ahmedabad2,184Chennai2,178Jaipur1,529Hyderabad1,396Pune1,332Surat951Indore841Chandigarh819Karnataka806Cochin637Rajkot476Raipur457Visakhapatnam421Lucknow303Nagpur296Amritsar271Agra241Cuttack235Guwahati234Telangana160Patna158Jodhpur146Ranchi139SC127Calcutta120Jabalpur119Panaji108Allahabad104Dehradun99Varanasi49Rajasthan22Kerala13Orissa13Punjab & Haryana6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Uttarakhand4Gauhati3Andhra Pradesh2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 41(1)2Section 682Section 54F2Section 260A2Exemption2

OM PARKASH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN JALANDHAR

ITA/338/2019HC Punjab & Haryana30 Mar 2022

Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 44A

1,68,859,00 Cr. Total 4,60,581.00 Cr. 5. In the absence of any confirmation from the above parties, it was held that the trading liability amounting to Rs.4,60,581/- had ceased to exist as per provisions of Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. JOGINDER SINGH CHATHA

ITA/25/2023HC Punjab & Haryana07 Nov 2023

MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Bench:
Section 260A

5. The defence as such in response to the notice dated 22.12.2014 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act was that he had visited U.K three times in the year 1985, 2006 and 2012 and had not opened any type of account in the U.K or any other country. He was an agriculturist and totally illiterate and permanent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN

ITA/59/2023HC Punjab & Haryana09 May 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 54F

1. The pre wherein a s b ju L &M) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( )-II, NEW DELHI Vs. NGH BAIDWAN **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SU **** Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standi for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2023 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH vs. M/S VISHAV MANAV RUHANI KENDRA

ITA/133/2021HC Punjab & Haryana20 Oct 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Section 11(1)(d)Section 260A

68. It was further recorded by the Appellate Authority that the appellant was able to give particulars of persons who had donated the amounts and the donors were never examined by the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise and there was nothing to show that the specific direction to the donor had to be in writing as to how the donations

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MS GOBIND DHAM RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD

ITA/111/2024HC Punjab & Haryana04 Dec 2024

Bench: The Revenue Authorities Related To Source Of Source. In Our Considered View The Assessee Submitted Pan, Returns Of Income, Audited Financial Statements, Transactions Through Banking Channels. The Ld. Ar Invited Our Attention To The Jawala Ram 2024.12.10 17:53 I Attest To The Accuracy & Authenticity Of This Document

Section 68

Section 68, for undisclosed credit, the concerned assessee has to satisfy the identity of the party to the banking transactions, filing of the Income Tax Returns and credit worthiness. The DR as well as the appellant here do not raise objections regarding the genuineness of the identity of the party of the banking transactions and of filing of Income

RANJIT SINGH GHUMAN vs. C I T

ITA/216/2007HC Punjab & Haryana17 May 2024

Bench: The Revenue Authorities That A Sum Of ` 5,00,000/- Was Still Due To Be Paid & Varinder Singh 2024.05.21 13:43 I Attest To The Accuracy & Authencity Of This Order/Judgment

Section 158

1,00,000/- and ` 70,000/- in various years from 2003 to 2006. Copies of the bank statements have been also placed in order to confirm the submissions made by the appellant with regard to the fact that the amount of ` 5,00,000/- was still due to be paid and the Income Tax authorities had wrongfully added the said