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 9(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi9,194Mumbai7,821Bangalore2,363Kolkata2,250Ahmedabad1,800Chennai1,795Jaipur1,361Hyderabad1,269Pune1,166Surat822Chandigarh802Karnataka775Indore738Cochin529Raipur437Rajkot397Visakhapatnam384Nagpur247Amritsar242Lucknow215Cuttack215Agra214Guwahati191Telangana151Jodhpur120SC115Ranchi112Jabalpur104Patna101Allahabad94Calcutta93Panaji89Dehradun79Varanasi35Rajasthan22Kerala13Orissa10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 41(1)2

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

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

ITA/25/2023HC Punjab & Haryana
07 Nov 2023

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

Section 260A

1 month to 2 months. A finding was recorded that defence had not been substantiated with evidence and he was unable to produce his nephew or any other evidence to prove the source of deposits in the bank account. Accordingly, income was held to be income from unexplained sources. 7. The claim of the assessee regarding closure of the profile

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