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.

621 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai621Delhi496Jaipur194Ahmedabad172Chennai147Bangalore139Hyderabad121Kolkata117Chandigarh97Pune84Rajkot79Cochin70Indore67Surat67Amritsar40Lucknow37Nagpur36Visakhapatnam35Agra25Raipur25Jodhpur23Cuttack22Patna19Guwahati18Allahabad16Jabalpur10Dehradun6Varanasi6Ranchi5Panaji3Karnataka3Rajasthan1SC1Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 6896Addition to Income72Section 69A57Section 69C39Disallowance37Section 14A36Section 13231Section 1024Section 153A23Section 147

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3),, MUMBAI vs. FA CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3897/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vijay Mehta
Section 69A

Section 69A of the Act." 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 621 · Page 1 of 32

...
22
Cash Deposit19
Search & Seizure17
ITAT Mumbai
10 Dec 2025
AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

disallowance made under Section 14A? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/-out of the total addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

disallowance made under Section 14A? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/-out of the total addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A

DCIT 29(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRTI RAMJI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3341/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.5,89,78,990/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee but the revenue was not satisfied, therefore, filed

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

disallowances. The following ratio as per para 12 of Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. is to be applied. “12. If we now apply Explanation (baa) as interpreted by us in this judgment to the facts of the case before us, if the rent or interest is a receipt chargeable as profits

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2024[A.Y 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

disallowances under section 37(1) treating salary, interest and other administrative expenses as non-genuine or unexplained, additions under section 68 treating unsecured loans and suspense credits appearing in the books of account as unexplained cash credits, and additions under section 69A

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5220/MUM/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

disallowances under section 37(1) treating salary, interest and other administrative expenses as non-genuine or unexplained, additions under section 68 treating unsecured loans and suspense credits appearing in the books of account as unexplained cash credits, and additions under section 69A

EAGER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENT-CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5258/MUM/2024[A.Y 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

disallowances under section 37(1) treating salary, interest and other administrative expenses as non-genuine or unexplained, additions under section 68 treating unsecured loans and suspense credits appearing in the books of account as unexplained cash credits, and additions under section 69A

AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay-Trust Plot No.185, Shree Ayyappa Temple Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaata0312K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A), 53 634, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

disallowing the deductions claimed by the appellant and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order u/s 143(3) made on 26 12 2019. 3. Without prejudice to the generality of the ground of appeal no 1 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5944/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5941/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 6458/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, , MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5942/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 6835/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5940/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5943/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

disallowance made under Section 69A is not sustainable, the corresponding disallowance of depreciation on the alleged inflated capital expenditure is also

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

disallowance made under Section 69A is not sustainable, the corresponding disallowance of depreciation on the alleged inflated capital expenditure is also

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

disallowance made under Section 69A is not sustainable, the corresponding disallowance of depreciation on the alleged inflated capital expenditure is also

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL)--50, MUMAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

disallowance made under Section 69A is not sustainable, the corresponding disallowance of depreciation on the alleged inflated capital expenditure is also