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.

63 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi162Mumbai123Jaipur101Bangalore63Chandigarh59Ahmedabad40Chennai38Hyderabad33Pune30Kolkata28Indore26Surat25Agra16Rajkot13Raipur7Visakhapatnam6Jabalpur5Cochin5Amritsar5Cuttack5Jodhpur2Allahabad2Karnataka2Kerala1Ranchi1Lucknow1Varanasi1SC1Dehradun1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 153A79Addition to Income54Section 13240Section 132(4)38Section 69B35Section 143(3)29Section 6828Survey u/s 133A25Section 6919Section 154

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

disallowance of expenditure incurred towards earth filling and land levelling cannot be made. More so, when the net profit declared by the assessee is at par with the net profit earned by the similar line of business and there is no finding by authorities that the net profit declared by the assessee is below the acceptable rate of net profit

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

18
Disallowance18
Undisclosed Income14

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 286/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section 142A shall

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2472/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section 142A shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 483/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 195

Section 69B of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition and this issue of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 6.3 Considering the facts and the decision in the case of Solitaire Fabrics Pvt Ltd. v/s Department Of Income Tax it is evident that

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act without considering the contention that section 40A(3) is not applicable and addition is not warranted. 10. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) e r r ed in upholding the addition of Rs.3 lakhs made applying the provisions of section 69B

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Akshatha Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 250

disallowed the deduction & adding the same under head salary and on the other hand, invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act which is completely unacceptable. Section 115BBE can only be invoked in Biju Pappachan, Kollam Page 13 of 14 case of tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 569/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

69B and 69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

69B and 69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

69B and 69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

69B or fair market value of any property referred to in Sub-Section (2) of section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. Page 10 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 772/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

BHARATH BEEDI WORKS PVT. LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

ITA 1903/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 43B

section 69B. The CIT(A) deleted the addition accepting the contention of the assessee, the expenditure cannot be same as the actual expenditure. The CIT(A) has not given any specific finding for deleting the addition made. Reliance is placed on decision of Uttarakhand High court in the case of Smt. Kiran Lata (177 TAXMANN 420) wherein it is held

PUTTAPPA T.K ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 547/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

disallowance. 11. With regard to the remaining amount of Rs.7,56,800/- (out of the addition of Rs.22.00 lakhs), we notice that the assessee could not furnish any evidence to substantiate his claim that the same represents collection of advances given by him earlier. Before us, the Ld A.R submitted details of agricultural lands held by the assessee and contended

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Girija G.P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 68

disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D. 10. The next issue is the addition made u/s.68 towards the unaccounted foreign currency. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2017 and during the search certain foreign currencies were found the list of which is as under :- 11. In the statement recorded the assessee has mentioned that out of the currencies

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 812/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred in law and ITA Nos.809 to 812/Bang/2022 M/s. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar Page 2 of 11 facts in holding that section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation. 2.1 Ground