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(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi8,611Mumbai7,368Bangalore2,246Kolkata1,950Chennai1,660Ahmedabad1,637Jaipur1,326Hyderabad1,230Pune1,094Karnataka768Surat761Chandigarh760Indore721Cochin444Raipur408Rajkot367Visakhapatnam346Lucknow229Nagpur229Amritsar213Cuttack212Agra204Guwahati186Telangana148Ranchi113Jodhpur108SC101Calcutta94Jabalpur92Allahabad91Panaji84Patna79Dehradun67Varanasi32Rajasthan19Kerala12Orissa12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Gauhati3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

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

4. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that there were allegations that the assessee had deposited $2496835.89 equivalent to `11,13,83,849/- @ `44.61 per US$ in the said bank account during the financial year 2005-2006 and relevant to the assessment year 2006-2007. Similarly, there was another deposit of $226509.38 equivalent

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

11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh ITA-133-2021 (O&M) -3- 4. The factum of receipts was noticed which were issued by the branches at various places separately i.e. for Derabassi, Kurali etc. and had been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was also noticed that there was a judicial view regarding

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

4. Learned counsel for the revenue has supported the order and submits that the ITAT is the final fact finding authority and this Court would not interfere with the order merely because it may conclude differently from what has been finally arrived at from the conclusion which have been drawn on the basis of the same facts. 5. We have