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 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,216Mumbai8,820Kolkata2,772Bangalore2,521Ahmedabad2,072Chennai1,984Jaipur1,461Hyderabad1,360Pune1,270Surat900Chandigarh858Indore797Karnataka789Cochin607Raipur457Rajkot453Visakhapatnam411Nagpur282Lucknow267Amritsar256Agra238Cuttack231Guwahati209Telangana157Jodhpur135Patna135Ranchi132SC118Jabalpur115Calcutta103Allahabad101Panaji97Dehradun94Varanasi48Rajasthan22Orissa13Kerala13A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Uttarakhand4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 41(1)2

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

7. The claim of the assessee regarding closure of the profile w.e.f. 11.06.2004 was rejected on the ground that closure of profile does not mean closure of bank account, since the said modification was made on 31.07.2004 and therefore, the contention that account having been closed on 11.06.2004 was held to be incorrect. The onus lay upon the appellant under

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

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 Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.4,60,581/- was made

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