Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur46 Delhi29 Rajkot22 Mumbai20 Kolkata20 Bangalore14 Surat12 Chennai10 Indore10 Pune8 Hyderabad5 Cuttack4 Chandigarh4 Jodhpur2 Cochin2 Lucknow2 Raipur2 Nagpur1 SC1 Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 115B6 Section 69A5 Section 694 Section 143(2)4 Section 142(1)4 Business Income4 Section 69D3 Addition to Income3 Survey u/s 133A3 Section 133A

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

2

Section 143(1)2

69D to hold that income/ investment, whose source is not explained, will still be classified as income 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 8 under any head u/s 14. It would be, therefore, impermissible to attempt and classify such incomes under any of specific heads, even if there is any activity which can be remotely/indirectly linked to such deemed

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

69D of the Act would be an extreme measure against businesses and households alike. 2.2.22 Therefore, while conducting business operations, entities routinely withdraw cash to meet expenses. Similarly in the Appellant's case the cash was withdrawn for making payments to farmers whose produce was sold to the State Government. Therefore, the actions of Ld. AO are not justifiable

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 69A

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D

RAJIV KUMAR,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SIRHIND, SIRHIND

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1235/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 66Section 69D

disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter-VI-A of the Act, however, the same has not been pressed. 3. Now coming to the sole ground contested by the assessee as to whether the tax at normal rates is to be charged on the amount offered of Rs.35 lacs as additional income or the tax @ 60% as provided u/s 115BBE