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.

4,286 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,901Delhi769Kolkata237Jaipur224Bangalore138Ahmedabad129Chennai122Chandigarh120Surat98Pune84Indore80Amritsar58Hyderabad57Raipur37Rajkot37Guwahati27Nagpur27Agra26Visakhapatnam24Lucknow19Cochin16Calcutta8Jodhpur8Cuttack7Jabalpur5Dehradun5Ranchi4Patna4Varanasi3Allahabad2Punjab & Haryana2Telangana2Kerala2Orissa1Karnataka1Panaji1SC1

Key Topics

Section 14795Section 143(3)87Addition to Income85Section 14867Section 69C65Section 153A44Section 13239Section 6838Section 69A36Disallowance

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 263Section 37Section 69C

disallowed under section 37(1) as inadmissible business expenditure and cannot be converted into deemed income so as to attract section 115BBE. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that while non- application of section 115BBE to a valid section 68 addition justified revision, invocation of section 69C

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

Showing 1–20 of 4,286 · Page 1 of 215

...
36
Search & Seizure25
Reopening of Assessment20
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

disallowed is the expenditure incurred and not the source of payment towards such expenditure. Neither Section 68 nor Section 69C

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

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. Considering facts of the case, the Assessing Officer is directed to deleted invocation of provisions of section 69C

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3755/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv
Section 133ASection 143(1)

disallowed (Section 69C) genuineness, the entire expenditure must be disallowed (Section 69C) genuineness, the entire expenditure must be disallowed (Section

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 Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 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

69C-AO needs to conduct further inquiry for proving the transactions are bogus 3.25 It is submitted that the Ld. AO has accepted the source of expenditure a genuine transaction by considering the facts. Whereas for making the disallowance under section

SHAKUNTALA KAMBLE (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PREMCHAND KAMBLE),THANE vs. DCIT -CENT. CIR `, THANE

ITA 1764/MUM/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Pravin TembhekarFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 153ASection 253(3)

Section 69C of the Act as the Assessee has failed to provide any explanation: ITA Nos. 1764-1767 & 1911-1912/Mum/2021 & ITA No. 1394-1396/Mum/2020 AY 2005-06-2008-09, AY 2006-07- to 2008-09 H Payments - Additions/Disallowances H1 Commission paid u/s 69C 35,000 H2 Disallowance

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

ITA 767/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 69A

69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income- tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i) The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent and (ii) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

69C of the Act in view of the scheme of those provisions.” Thus, in the absence of any explation regarding the nature and source of the excess cash, investment in building and excess stock found, the same cannot be assessed as business income, rather it is squarely ITA 260/Amr/2019 13 covered under the provisions of section 69/69A as unexplained income/investment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 439/HYD/2022[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

For Appellant: Shri H.SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 34

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

69C and 69D alone. Moreover, such income should be reflected in the return of income furnished u/s 139 or the income determined by the Assessing Officer should include any income referred to in the aforementioned Sections of the Act. In such an event, the calculation of income tax is specifically governed by the provisions of Sec.115BBE. It is submitted that

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

69C and 69D alone. Moreover, such income should be reflected in the return of income furnished u/s 139 or the income determined by the Assessing Officer should include any income referred to in the aforementioned Sections of the Act. In such an event, the calculation of income tax is specifically governed by the provisions of Sec.115BBE. It is submitted that

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act [refer Tum Nath Shaw vs ACIT: 175 ITD 45 (Kol-Trib.)]. 29. The Ld. DR, on the other head, vehemently relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that addition 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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act [refer Tum Nath Shaw vs ACIT: 175 ITD 45 (Kol-Trib.)]. 29. The Ld. DR, on the other head, vehemently relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that addition under section 69C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/HYD/2022[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ARSHIYA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7177/MUM/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7177 & 7178/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2010–11) M/S Arshiya Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of 302, Level–3, Ceejay House, Income, Circle-21(2)(5) F–Block, Shiv Sagar Estate,Dr. Room No. 116, 1 St Floor, बनाम/ Annie Besant Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaci2679A अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Navnit Choudhary, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 घोर्णा की िारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R शक्तिजीि डे, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Saktijit Dey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Navnit Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 28Section 4Section 68Section 69C

Disallowance under section 69C of `4,40,351/- (iii) disallowance under section 68 of `10,01,50,000/- (iv) addition

JOGINDER KUMAR & SONS HUF,PANIPAT vs. PCIT ROTAK, ROTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1975/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljoginder Kumar & Sons Huf Pcit, 352/6, Near S D Modern School, Rohtak. Panipat-132103. Vs. Pan- Aachj6257L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhurv Goel, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (‘The Pcit’ In Short) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.03.2025 Wherein The Ld. Pcit Held The Assessment Order As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Terms Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263 & Direct The Ao To Conduct Fresh Enquiries & Passed The Speaking Order.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 69C are also reproduced in the show cause notice