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 “charitable trust”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi63Mumbai51Hyderabad38Bangalore22Jaipur11Ahmedabad7Amritsar6Chennai5Chandigarh3Kolkata2Indore1Lucknow1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 26324Section 40A(3)6Section 1476Bogus Purchases3Disallowance3

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

69C of the Act, as unexplained expenditure in respect of the purchases, was to be upheld. 12.3 Again, the facts are exactly similar. To reiterate, here also, the AO made the addition merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without bringing on record anything to prove the purchases to be bogus. In contradistinction, the assessee had furnished on record

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
04 Mar 2024
AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

69C of the Act, as unexplained expenditure in respect of the purchases, was to be upheld. 12.3 Again, the facts are exactly similar. To reiterate, here also, the AO made the addition merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without bringing on record anything to prove the purchases to be bogus. In contradistinction, the assessee had furnished on record

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

69C of the Act, as unexplained expenditure in respect of the purchases, was to be upheld. 12.3 Again, the facts are exactly similar. To reiterate, here also, the AO made the addition merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without bringing on record anything to prove the purchases to be bogus. In contradistinction, the assessee had furnished on record