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.

55 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,418Delhi934Jaipur339Kolkata247Bangalore146Chandigarh145Chennai143Ahmedabad135Indore112Hyderabad111Surat107Pune78Visakhapatnam55Rajkot51Raipur37Lucknow37Guwahati31Nagpur28Agra25Cochin23Jodhpur20Amritsar19Ranchi16Jabalpur7Dehradun6Calcutta5Allahabad4Cuttack4SC4Karnataka4Varanasi3Patna3Panaji1Kerala1Telangana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income42Section 143(3)30Section 14727Section 143(2)27Section 132(4)27Section 6823Section 14822Section 13220Survey u/s 133A

SRI LAXMI NARAYANA JUTE MILLS(P) LIMITED,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.399 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) M/S Sri Laxmi Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Jute Mills (P) Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.7-106, Cheepurupalli Street Vizianagaram Bobbili Vizianagaram Dist. [Pan:Aalcs1654C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 16.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 68Section 69

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

20
Section 153A18
Unexplained Investment10
Limitation/Time-bar9
Section 69A
Section 69B
Section 69C

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

ITA 229/VIZ/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

ITA 221/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 137/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

ITA 223/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 138/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 135/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

SATHI MANGAYAMMA,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 119/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished 10 Sathi Mangayamma under section 139; or (b) determined by the assessing officer includes any income referred to in section 68

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was\nenhanced from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

ITA 228/VIZ/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 144/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 194CSection 69C

sections": ["133(6)", "69C", "68", "194A", "194C", "143(3)", "142(1)", "69"], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the genuineness

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 372/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income\nis not covered under clause (a),\nthe income

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 139/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

ITA 222/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices

KHAN MOHAMMAD DIAMONDS & JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,GUNTUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Khan Mohammad Diamonds Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax & Jewellers Private Limited, (Central) 5-37-221/A, 4Th Lane Visakhapatnam Brodipet, Guntur [Pan : Aacck6467A]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 11BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69C

68 to section 69C of the Act. In this case, the AO has not invoked any such section

ISRINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194CSection 68Section 69C

68. Ground\n5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not\njustified in confirming the treatment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as unexplained\nexpenditure under section 69C

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

section 68, 69 or 69C. During the course of assessment proceedings, one of the directors Shri B.V.Demulu has explained

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

section 68, 69 or 69C. During the course of assessment proceedings, one of the directors Shri B.V.Demulu has explained

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra