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.

121 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur232Delhi161Mumbai121Chandigarh96Bangalore80Chennai64Indore57Surat50Ahmedabad48Pune48Hyderabad45Cochin25Kolkata24Agra22Visakhapatnam17Rajkot17Amritsar15Raipur12Ranchi12Guwahati10Jodhpur9Jabalpur7Cuttack6Allahabad6Karnataka3Lucknow3SC3Patna2Panaji1Varanasi1Nagpur1Kerala1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Section 69A79Section 153A77Section 6877Section 143(3)48Section 115B34Section 26331Section 6930Section 143(2)27Survey u/s 133A

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)

Showing 1–20 of 121 · Page 1 of 7

20
Deduction16
Disallowance16
Section 68
Section 69C

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

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

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: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income

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

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

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

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 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21
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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREATIVE GEMS AND JEWELLERY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2821/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

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

CREATIVE GEMS AND JEWELLERY LIMITED,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2053/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

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

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. 'A' STAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4411/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

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

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4412/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

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

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. RAHIL AGENCIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4413/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

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

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3425/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 71

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

M/S. KLAUS WAREN FIXTURES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2270/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

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

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

ITA 3424/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Vora & Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 1Section 11Section 115BSection 115JSection 119Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 263

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 690, if such income

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 638/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

section 68 of the Act. 6 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition made u/s 69B

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 9215/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

section 68 of the Act. 6 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition made u/s 69B

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

68 as unexplained cash credit and in none of the cases the assessees have admitted the same as income. Therefore, we find that the case laws relied up on by the Ld.DR has no application in the instant case and the same are distinguishable. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

68 as unexplained cash credit and in none of the cases the assessees have admitted the same as income. Therefore, we find that the case laws relied up on by the Ld.DR has no application in the instant case and the same are distinguishable. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts