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(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi8,653Mumbai7,406Bangalore2,252Kolkata1,954Chennai1,674Ahmedabad1,640Jaipur1,332Hyderabad1,228Pune1,096Karnataka769Surat765Chandigarh762Indore721Cochin444Raipur408Rajkot368Visakhapatnam346Lucknow230Nagpur229Amritsar214Cuttack212Agra205Guwahati187Telangana148Ranchi117Jodhpur108SC101Calcutta94Jabalpur92Allahabad91Panaji84Patna79Dehradun67Varanasi32Rajasthan19Orissa12Kerala12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ passed in ITA No.899/Chd/2019 dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure A-3). 2. Counsel for the appellant has pressed the following substantial question of law:- “(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

2,05,000/-, ` 45,000/-, ` 80,000/-, ` 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