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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai650Delhi512Jaipur192Ahmedabad159Chennai156Bangalore149Kolkata124Hyderabad120Rajkot87Chandigarh82Cochin70Surat64Indore59Pune59Lucknow39Nagpur36Amritsar35Agra32Visakhapatnam31Raipur24Jodhpur23Patna21Cuttack17Allahabad16Guwahati10Dehradun7Varanasi6Jabalpur5Ranchi4Karnataka3Panaji3Rajasthan1Kerala1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 69A7Section 1445Section 69C4Addition to Income4Section 143(2)3Section 142(1)3Section 255(4)2Section 124(3)(a)2Demonetization

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

69A of the Act. Similarly appellant had shown Rs. 21,97,16,115/- as 'other payables' as on 31-03-2016 andRs.30,19,86,328/- as 'other payables' as on 31-03-2017. Since, appellant failed to substantiate the 'other payables' AO disallowed the difference amount of Rs. 8,22,70,213/- and added to total income of the appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

2
ITA 136/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

69A of the Act , and , thus, aforesaid income of Rs. 45,608/- was added to the total income of the assessee by the AO and brought to tax @ 60% as provided under Section 115BBE of the Act, vide assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed by AO u/s 143(3). 3b. The AO , further observed that the assessee has provided details

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

69A , which stood added to her income by the AO vide assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee appeared in person along with her counsel before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee made her submissions before ld. CIT(A) , who forwarded

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

69A , which stood added to her income by the AO vide assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee appeared in person along with her counsel before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee made her submissions before ld. CIT(A) , who forwarded

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01, VARANASI vs. PERFECT TECNO COUNSULTANTS PVT. LTD. , VARANASI

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

ITA 139/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Perfect Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, V. N-1/65-A, Narrotam Nagar Colony, M A Road, Varanasi- Nagwa, Lanka Varanasi-221005,U.P. 221002,U.P. Pan:Aagcp3236N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sh. Amalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Assessee By: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. AmalenduNath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc. , deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing at arm length price while dealing with relatives and associated concerns

CHAMRU RAM,CHANDAULI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 14/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 145(3)Section 255(4)Section 69ASection 69C

section 69A/69C of the I. T. Act on the excess amount and adding back Rs.17,19,275/- u/s 69A of the I. T. Act as well as Rs.9,07,100/- u/s 69C of the I. T. Act. The learned CIT(A) has also erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 3. Because the learned Assessing Officer has erred