Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur103 Delhi93 Mumbai71 Chandigarh43 Bangalore38 Indore38 Surat36 Pune27 Hyderabad22 Rajkot22 Chennai21 Kolkata17 Cochin16 Ahmedabad14 Amritsar13 Ranchi11 Raipur9 Jodhpur6 Lucknow5 Cuttack5 Visakhapatnam4 Guwahati3 Patna3 Nagpur3 Panaji2 Jabalpur2 Allahabad1 SC1 Kerala1 Varanasi1 Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 26312 Section 14711 Addition to Income9 Undisclosed Income6 Section 683 Section 271(1)(c)3 Section 69A2

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 336/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

section 115BBE r.w.s. 68– 69D of the Act, and whether it should have been taxed accordingly u/s 115BBE. 4. Based

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

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

section 69D of the Act were not attracted to the borrowings raised by executing such promissory notes and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable both in facts and in law, therefore, he deleted the addition. 9. In ground No.4 of the appeal for the assessment year 2006-2007, the grievance of the Revenue is that

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

section 69D of the Act were not attracted to the borrowings raised by executing such promissory notes and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable both in facts and in law, therefore, he deleted the addition. 9. In ground No.4 of the appeal for the assessment year 2006-2007, the grievance of the Revenue is that

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

section 69D of the Act were not attracted to the borrowings raised by executing such promissory notes and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable both in facts and in law, therefore, he deleted the addition. 9. In ground No.4 of the appeal for the assessment year 2006-2007, the grievance of the Revenue is that

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

section 69D of the Act were not attracted to the borrowings raised by executing such promissory notes and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable both in facts and in law, therefore, he deleted the addition. 9. In ground No.4 of the appeal for the assessment year 2006-2007, the grievance of the Revenue is that

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

section 69D of the Act were not attracted to the borrowings raised by executing such promissory notes and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable both in facts and in law, therefore, he deleted the addition. 9. In ground No.4 of the appeal for the assessment year 2006-2007, the grievance of the Revenue is that

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

section 69D of the Act were not attracted to the borrowings raised by executing such promissory notes and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable both in facts and in law, therefore, he deleted the addition. 9. In ground No.4 of the appeal for the assessment year 2006-2007, the grievance of the Revenue is that

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

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