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.

700 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi740Mumbai700Jaipur349Ahmedabad306Bangalore223Chennai209Hyderabad164Chandigarh147Surat121Pune116Kolkata115Indore103Cochin91Rajkot90Lucknow56Amritsar51Nagpur48Visakhapatnam40Raipur36Agra35Patna28Jodhpur28Guwahati25Ranchi19Allahabad18Cuttack16Jabalpur10Varanasi6Panaji5Dehradun5SC3Karnataka3Rajasthan1Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 68113Addition to Income74Section 69C49Section 69A47Section 13240Section 14A36Disallowance30Section 143(3)26Section 6922Section 148

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

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 of CIT(A) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI YOGENDRA KANODIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1544/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 700 · Page 1 of 35

...
22
Cash Deposit16
Search & Seizure16
ITAT Mumbai
18 Dec 2023
AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-Cc-5(4), Vs. Mrs.Rashmiyogendra Room No.1924,19Th Kanodia(Legal Heir Of Floor, Air Late Shri Yogendra Indiabuilding, Surajmal Kanodia) Nariman Point, 1 St Floor,Samudra Mumbai-400021. Tarang, Keluskarroad, Northshivajipark,Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpk4863A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rameshwar Meena.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay.R.Singh.AR
Section 69A

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or b determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68

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

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

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68. We further note that the SBNs have been\ndeposited in the members accounts, accordingly, the assessee did not\nget any extra benefit as observed by the AO in his order at para No. 06\nwhich was treated as income us 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. The income declared by the assessee is unrecorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. The income declared by the assessee is unrecorded

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68. We further note that the SBNs have been\ndeposited in the members accounts, accordingly, the assessee did not\nget any extra benefit as observed by the AO in his order at para No. 06\nwhich was treated as income us 69A

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68. We further note that the SBNs have been\ndeposited in the members accounts, accordingly, the assessee did not\nget any extra benefit as observed by the AO in his order at para No. 06\nwhich was treated as income us 69A

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68. We further note that the SBNs have been\ndeposited in the members accounts, accordingly, the assessee did not\nget any extra benefit as observed by the AO in his order at para No. 06\nwhich was treated as income us 69A

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

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

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

68, M/s. Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. section 69, section 69A, section 698, Section 690 for any previous

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

68, sections 69 and 69A deal with suspicion only. Unlike section 68, sections 69 and 69A deal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for\n

ITA 2374/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2016-2017
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹41,88,000/-\nmade by the Assessing Officer, without\nconsidering the facts and circumstances of the\ncase and settled position of law.\n2.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of\nthe case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in\ndeleting the addition under Section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

section 115BE are applicable on the income taxable under\nsection 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. The income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

ITA 2377/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹41,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

ITA 2376/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹41,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69A

BHISHMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

ITA 2067/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹41,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

ITA 2373/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹41,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. BHISMA AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 2376/M/2023 filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2021 – 22 is dismissed

ITA 2371/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹41,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69A