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.

745 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,850Delhi745Kolkata214Jaipur212Chandigarh140Ahmedabad134Bangalore131Pune110Chennai108Surat98Indore84Hyderabad75Amritsar61Raipur38Rajkot36Visakhapatnam30Guwahati28Nagpur27Agra25Lucknow16Cochin15Calcutta8Cuttack8Jodhpur8Dehradun5Jabalpur5Ranchi4Varanasi3Patna3Panaji2Allahabad2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Telangana2Karnataka1Orissa1SC1

Key Topics

Section 153A100Addition to Income93Section 6878Section 69C64Section 14754Section 143(3)51Disallowance40Section 13235Search & Seizure34Section 69A

ALEXIS GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 69C

disallowed is the expenditure incurred and not the source of payment towards such expenditure. Neither Section 68 nor Section 69C

ADD ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal

ITA 854/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Delhi International Airport, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Showing 1–20 of 745 · Page 1 of 38

...
32
Section 153D24
Bogus Purchases24
Section 37(1)Section 69Section 69C

69C-AO needs to conduct further inquiry for proving the transactions are bogus 3.25 It is submitted that the Ld. AO has accepted the source of expenditure a genuine transaction by considering the facts. Whereas for making the disallowance under section

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act [refer Tum Nath Shaw vs ACIT: 175 ITD 45 (Kol-Trib.)]. 29. The Ld. DR, on the other head, vehemently relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that addition under section 69C

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act [refer Tum Nath Shaw vs ACIT: 175 ITD 45 (Kol-Trib.)]. 29. The Ld. DR, on the other head, vehemently relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that addition under section 69C

JOGINDER KUMAR & SONS HUF,PANIPAT vs. PCIT ROTAK, ROTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1975/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljoginder Kumar & Sons Huf Pcit, 352/6, Near S D Modern School, Rohtak. Panipat-132103. Vs. Pan- Aachj6257L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhurv Goel, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (‘The Pcit’ In Short) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.03.2025 Wherein The Ld. Pcit Held The Assessment Order As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Terms Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263 & Direct The Ao To Conduct Fresh Enquiries & Passed The Speaking Order.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 69C are also reproduced in the show cause notice

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 69C

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The provisions of section 69C are as under: “69C Where in any financial year

MANOJ KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3378/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

Section 147Section 148Section 15BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act and not u/s 37(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 69C are as under

FEATHER INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

ITA 977/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153C

disallowance from Section 69C to Section 68 is not permissible in similar facts. The ld. counsel next submitted that the invoices

FEATHER INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

ITA 891/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153C

disallowance from Section 69C to Section 68 is not permissible in similar facts. The ld. counsel next submitted that the invoices

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act as they were not incurred for business purposes. The ld. PCIT, Rohtak examined the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 of the ld. AO and concluded that since the same was passed without applying the provisions of section 69C

SINGHAL EXIM P.LTYD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6520/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.R. WadhwaFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 68

disallowed the expenditure under Section 69C. Section 69C reads as under :- “69C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred

SUNITA GROVAR,PANIPAT, HARYANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ROHTA, ROHTAK HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3608/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 147Section 263

69C of the Act and also disallowance made by the AO in his assessment order which is reproduced above. As is evident from bare perusal of the order of the AO, disallowance related to expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to subcontractor which were not found to be genuine. Section

M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2999/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2601/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2602/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3165/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. But, in respect of the addition in question of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

disallow those expenses under section 69C of the income tax act. The addition u/s 69C of the income tax act can be made