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.

48 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur232Delhi161Mumbai121Chandigarh96Bangalore80Chennai64Indore57Surat50Ahmedabad48Pune48Hyderabad45Cochin25Kolkata24Agra22Visakhapatnam17Rajkot17Amritsar15Raipur12Ranchi12Guwahati10Jodhpur9Jabalpur7Cuttack6Allahabad6Karnataka3Lucknow3SC3Patna2Panaji1Varanasi1Nagpur1Kerala1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)58Section 69B54Addition to Income36Section 143(3)30Section 69C27Section 6826Section 115B25Section 133A23Survey u/s 133A22Section 263

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 870/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 69

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

17
Business Income15
Penalty14

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

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

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

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

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

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

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

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

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

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

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

SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

ITA 869/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. 15. Similar view

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. 15. Similar view

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. 15. Similar view

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. 15. Similar view

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2626/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

69B in respect of such excess stock. Decisions where it was held that sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

69B in respect of such excess stock. Decisions where it was held that sections 68, 69, 69A to 690 are not applicable

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 677/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

69B in respect of such excess stock. Decisions where it was held that sections 68, 69, 69A to 690 are not applicable

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 625/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah And Shri Rohit S TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

69B in respect of such excess stock. Decisions where it was held that sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable

SHRI PADMAKAR SOPAN KANDARFALE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2389/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

68 and not for the purposes of Section 69, Section 69A and Section 69B. This is for the reason

KOLHAPUR TIMBER AND FURNITURE MART,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2697/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 68

Sections like 69,69A, 69B for Sec.68 applied by Assessing Officer. Appellant prays to cancel the same. 4. CIT(A) is not just and fair in confirming applicability of special rate of Tax u/s 115BВЕ. 5. Appellant denies liability to Interest u/s 234, same may please be cancelled. 6. Appellant prays to cancel the levy of interest charged

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

ITA 1392/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

68,32,775/- in the purchase of land at Lohegaon. This additional expenditure was declared by the assessee under section 69B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEEPAK BABURAO VISPUTE, KOPARGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2399/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Smt Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

section 69B of the Act as the assessee failed to furnish sources of unaccounted excess stock unearthed during the survey action. ii) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance at 10% of Rs.2,83,490/- made on account of sales and promotion expenses

LATE HARILAL MAVJIBHAI PATEL,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2698/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranik
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68Section 69

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Under similar set of facts and circumstances, this Tribunal in plethora of decisions have consistently held that if the unexplained income is from business sources then section 115BBE cannot be invoked. We would like to reproduce below to finding of Co-ordinate Bench of Indore Tribunal in the case of M/s. Suresh Aluminium