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.

93 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur103Delhi93Mumbai71Chandigarh43Bangalore38Indore38Surat36Pune27Hyderabad22Rajkot22Chennai21Kolkata17Cochin16Ahmedabad14Amritsar13Ranchi11Raipur9Jodhpur6Lucknow5Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Guwahati3Patna3Nagpur3Panaji2Jabalpur2Allahabad1SC1Kerala1Varanasi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 6888Section 115B80Addition to Income78Section 26354Section 69A49Section 143(3)44Section 153A41Section 14340Search & Seizure37Section 148

SHAIKSHANIK KEISHANK SAMAJ,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 650/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Singhal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

69D are all deeming sections, placed after all sections, dealing with Income from various heads, end; meaning, thereby, that Section 11 to 13 cannot be looked and operated, in isolation; Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

29
Business Income17
Undisclosed Income14

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

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

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,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

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D if such 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 to 69D of the Act under the chapter aggregation of income. He further submitted that as the income

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 to 69D of the Act under the chapter aggregation of income. He further submitted that as the income

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 69D

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

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

sections 68, 69 and 69A to 69D fall in Chapter VI under the heading ‘Aggregation of Income’ and deem

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL JAIN, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted in this

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

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

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