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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 6(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,549Mumbai9,402Kolkata3,070Bangalore2,579Ahmedabad2,201Chennai2,149Jaipur1,536Hyderabad1,409Pune1,319Surat938Chandigarh898Indore833Karnataka799Cochin635Rajkot485Raipur459Visakhapatnam418Lucknow297Nagpur288Amritsar263Agra248Cuttack241Guwahati222Telangana161Jodhpur146Patna141Ranchi136Calcutta124SC121Jabalpur118Panaji109Dehradun104Allahabad103Varanasi50Rajasthan22Kerala13Orissa11Punjab & Haryana5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand4Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 41(1)2Section 54F2Section 260A2Exemption2

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

6. The Commissioner of Income Tax had dismissed the appeals on 26.12.2018, on the ground that an information was received from the competent authority under DTAC that the assessee was maintaining bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva. The deposits as such had been made in the financial year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and return had not been filed

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

68 83/Mum/2014 which al decision. Accordingly, in t circumstance of the present cas herein above considering the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, ITA No. 802/ infirmity in the order of he same. We have heard arties and perused the cases relied upon by the lowed the deductions u/s t the amended provisions n as the claim of the ment

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

2,91,722.00 Cr. (ii) Satish Surgincal Works 01.04.2013 Opening balance B/F 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 41(1) of the 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

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

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

2. Counsel for the appellant has pressed the following substantial question of law:- “(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below is right in the law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the donations amounting to Rs.13,18,82,040/- were not corpus donations