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.

944 results for “TDS”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai327Delhi214Kolkata61Hyderabad51Jaipur48Chandigarh38Chennai37Bangalore28Indore24Ahmedabad16Agra15Rajkot15Surat10Pune9Amritsar9Raipur8Visakhapatnam8Nagpur8Lucknow7Guwahati4Calcutta2Kerala1Jodhpur1Ranchi1Cochin1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 69C97Addition to Income85Section 143(3)75Section 14752Disallowance43Section 153C37Section 14A34Section 14833Section 6832TDS31Section 40

ALEXIS GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 69C

section 194C to persons who have not filed return of income”. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has made payments of Rs.4,67,39,654/- towards contract expenses and deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act on the amount of Rs.3,26,70,838/-. He further observed that the person to whom the payments were made

ADD ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal

ITA 854/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 944 · Page 1 of 48

...
24
Survey u/s 133A20
25 Jun 2025
AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Delhi International Airport, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 69Section 69C

section 69C i.e. there must be an expenditure incurred and there should be failure of the assessee to explain the source of the expenditure to me satisfaction to the AO are not fulfilled, I believe the addition of Rs.3.75,0,000/- was not warranted. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the same. Ground no 3 is allowed

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 69C

section 69C of IT Act by disallowing brokerage and commission paid to Sri DVN Divya. During assessment proceedings appellant has submitted copy f bills issued by Sri DVN Divya, his ledger account in the books of appellant, bank statement showing payments made to him, copy of form 16A downloaded from Traces site with his PAN, complete name, address commission paid

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

TDS, cash, cheque, etc. On the basis of the said papers, the assessing officer held that amount shown under column ‘cash’ was expenditure incurred outside the books of accounts. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

TDS, cash, cheque, etc. On the basis of the said papers, the assessing officer held that amount shown under column ‘cash’ was expenditure incurred outside the books of accounts. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

section 133(6) and confirmed of providing services to the assessee company and receipt of payment from it. They also provided copy of agreement, their bank statements and audited financial statements. In the assessment order Id. AO held that though the two companies have shown this amount as income in their P&L a/c but they are majorly engaged

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

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

ITA 219/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nShri R. K. Agarwal CIT(DR)For Respondent: \nShri Vinod Kumar, CA
Section 11Section 143(2)

TDS provisions and finally makes\naddition u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure. AO has failed to pin point\nas to how this addition can be made u/s 69C of IT Act as\nunexplained expenditure. S. 69C refers to the ‘source of the expenditure'\nand not to the expenditure itself. Section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 27/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

section 69C being unexplained expenditure to contractors. The A.O., during the assessment proceedings noticed that the appellant has incurred expenditure of ` 1,25,89,787, towards mining expenses. These expenses are on account of extraction of manganese ore to following labour contractors– ` 17,17,000 1 A Appala Swamy 2 D.S. Prakash ` 16,78,687 3 Madhusudana

DE vs. HARDHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. ,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9 (1)(3) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 257/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

69C on the basis that the assessee has not claimed any deduction remains unsubstantiated. In view of these facts in our considered view, we see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO. Addition of Rs.6,00,000 under section 69A and Rs.20,300 under section

DE vs. HARDA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9(1)3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8070/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

69C on the basis that the assessee has not claimed any deduction remains unsubstantiated. In view of these facts in our considered view, we see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO. Addition of Rs.6,00,000 under section 69A and Rs.20,300 under section

DEV SHARDA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4727/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

69C on the basis that the assessee has not claimed any deduction remains unsubstantiated. In view of these facts in our considered view, we see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO. Addition of Rs.6,00,000 under section 69A and Rs.20,300 under section

DE vs. HARDHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAIVS.ITO 9 (1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 256/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

69C on the basis that the assessee has not claimed any deduction remains unsubstantiated. In view of these facts in our considered view, we see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO. Addition of Rs.6,00,000 under section 69A and Rs.20,300 under section

ANAND CONSTRUWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

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

ITA 955/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anand Construwell Private Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Limited, Ramchandra Apartments, Makhmalabad Road, Panchvati, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aafca7736H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit-1, Nashik [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik May Please Be Quashed. 2. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Is Not Justified In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 By Holding That Provisions Of Section 69C Are Applicable In The Present Case As The Assessee Was Not Able To Explain The Sources Of Expenditure

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 69C

TDS. 5. The proceedings u/s 154 of the Act were initiated vide notice dated 05/04/2023 proposing to treat the abovementioned 9 income offered as taxable under section 69C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

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

ITA 39/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

section 69C. The assessee provided responses to the show cause notice, citing the pandemic's impact on individuals and emphasizing the deduction of TDS

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 24/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). This forms the issue in Ground No. 4. 14. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2011- 12, on a protective basis. Ground no.5 challenges this action

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 175/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 113/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 114/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal