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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 11(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi8,586Mumbai7,405Bangalore2,254Kolkata1,958Chennai1,674Ahmedabad1,636Jaipur1,331Hyderabad1,228Pune1,096Karnataka769Surat765Chandigarh750Indore721Cochin444Raipur408Rajkot364Visakhapatnam346Nagpur229Lucknow227Cuttack212Amritsar212Agra205Guwahati186Telangana147Ranchi117Jodhpur108SC101Calcutta93Jabalpur92Allahabad91Panaji84Patna80Dehradun67Varanasi32Rajasthan19Orissa12Kerala12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Tripura1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 260A2Addition to Income2

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

ITA/25/2023HC Punjab & Haryana07 Nov 2023

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

Section 260A

11,500/- alongwith agricultural income of `2,50,000/-. 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

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

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

Section 158 BC (c) on 26.02.2002 by the CIT, Jalandhar and while making other VARINDER SINGH 2024.05.21 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No. 216 of 2007 -3- additions, ` 5,00,000/- have been added as undisclosed investment made to acquire the rights of his sister-in-law in the family property