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.

43 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,418Delhi934Jaipur342Kolkata247Chandigarh156Bangalore146Chennai143Ahmedabad138Indore115Hyderabad111Surat107Pune97Visakhapatnam60Rajkot51Raipur43Lucknow37Guwahati31Nagpur28Agra25Cochin23Jodhpur20Amritsar19Ranchi16Jabalpur7Dehradun6Cuttack5Calcutta5Allahabad4SC4Karnataka4Varanasi3Patna3Panaji1Kerala1Telangana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income35Section 143(3)32Section 14730Section 6828Section 69C22Section 26320Section 14817Bogus Purchases13Section 153C10Section 131

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

9
Disallowance6
Undisclosed Income6

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

ITA 657/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Sections 68 and 69C of the Act, and if the purchases are bogus, then it is not incumbent upon

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

Section 69C of the Act; (ii) Advance against sale of land of Rs.16 crores was received, but no sale deed was furnished by the assessee; The advance received has not been examined under S. 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/BIL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69C, in the absence of any adequate material as to their nature and consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/BIL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69C, in the absence of any adequate material as to their nature and consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/BIL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69C, in the absence of any adequate material as to their nature and consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 130/BIL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69C, in the absence of any adequate material as to their nature and consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69C, in the absence of any adequate material as to their nature and consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/BIL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69C, in the absence of any adequate material as to their nature and consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SAKSHI SAGGAR, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/RPR/2026[2019]Status: HeardITAT Raipur02 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.219/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to make additions of Rs.6,12,692/- and Rs.11,93,100/- and further invoked section 69C

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

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

ITA 22/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43CSection 68

Section 68 for such amount wholly unconnected to the present assessment year in question. It was asserted that the scope of S. 68 is restricted to credits received during the year and does not extend to transactions of credits received in some other assessment year. The assessee thus contends that the directions of the PCIT to make enquiry

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

section, 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 194JSection 68Section 69C

68 as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. (ii) Payments made u/s 194J (Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C

RAJA MOHLE, KAWARDHA,KAWARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per aforesaid terms

ITA 821/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raja Mohle Chote Ragra, Indauri, Kawardha-491 336 (C.G.) Pan: Bvrpm0901R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69A

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, and 69D, which typically includes unexplained cash credits, investments expenditures, etc. and the Taxation

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 106/BIL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 105/BIL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

RAVI RAIKA,BHILAI vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.422 & 423/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2015-16 Ravi Raika 22/4, Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Acjpa2125R ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance was also made on the decision of PCIT

RAVI RAIKA,BHILAI vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.422 & 423/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2015-16 Ravi Raika 22/4, Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Acjpa2125R ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance was also made on the decision of PCIT