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.

161 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur232Delhi161Mumbai121Chandigarh96Bangalore80Chennai64Indore57Surat50Ahmedabad48Pune48Hyderabad45Cochin25Kolkata24Agra22Visakhapatnam17Rajkot17Amritsar15Raipur12Ranchi12Guwahati10Jodhpur9Jabalpur7Cuttack6Allahabad6Karnataka3Lucknow3SC3Patna2Panaji1Varanasi1Nagpur1Kerala1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 153A137Addition to Income93Section 6862Section 69B55Disallowance42Unexplained Investment36Section 115B35Bogus Purchases34Section 143(3)33Section 263

WEL INTERTRADE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7167/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N. Charyita No:-7167/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 143Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

Showing 1–20 of 161 · Page 1 of 9

...
30
Section 69C27
Search & Seizure23

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69 D and reflected

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8248/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C and section 69D of the Act and are subject

PRADEEP TYAGI HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1),FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 44ASection 80C

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable

SANJAY GUPTA,PANIPAT vs. PR, CIT , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 587/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

ZEAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the income assessed of the assessee would be (-)Rs

ITA 4811/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 4811/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 M/S Zeal Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 114, M-Block, Site-1, Opposite Circle-27(2), Pusa Institute, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacz3082E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2809/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

section 68, 69, 69A , 69B, 69C and 69D of the Act , which are to be aggregated with the income

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2808/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

section 68, 69, 69A , 69B, 69C and 69D of the Act , which are to be aggregated with the income

RAVINDER BAWEJA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

ITA 1731/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rikky Dua, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of IT Act. Section

RAVINDER BAWEJA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NES DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

ITA 1730/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rikky Dua, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of IT Act. Section

RAVINDER BAWEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

ITA 2254/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rikky Dua, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of IT Act. Section

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D and reflected in the return

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX VENTURES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1252/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Acit, Vs Max Venture Investment Holdings Circle-16(2), Pvt.Ltd., Max House, New Delhi. 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacd0213H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Respondent By S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv., Rohan Khare, Adv. & Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

69B for AY 2012-13. Based on this finding of the CIT(A), reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration which ultimately culminated into an assessment order dated 10.04.2019 and the entire investment made by Mr. Analjit Singh was treated as cash credit under Section 68

PRASHANT AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9754/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 69A

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1087/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 115BSection 132Section 2Section 69

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income- tax payable

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

section 69B. As nothing had been proved to show that any other amount than admitted had been paid by the assessee in order to buy shares, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition. 7.3 Further Hon’ble Tribunal in 80 TTJ 69 AFFIRMED BY GUJ HC IN 182 CTR 370, held that “However, the fact remains that

PRASHANT PITTI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3032/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2016-17 Prashant Pitti, Vs. Acit, C-179, Central Circle-4, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. New Delhi-110095. Pan Awxpp4522D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69A

section 68 that the assessee has challenged by contending that it is not in accordance with law as it is in excess of the powers vested in Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 and 251 of the Act. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the said change tantamount to enhancement of income by introducing

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS COMMUNIQUE MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 68

68 is not applicable, the cash deposit in the bank can be asked to be explained by the assessee under section 69 or section 69B

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

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, Section 69D if such income is not covered

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

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, Section 69D if such income is not covered