Section 69D of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.106

Section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 106 (Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 106 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 69D is CIT v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (134 CTR 145), cited in 19 of the 184 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 69D

CIT v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation
134 CTR 145 · 1996 · High Court
19
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer's decision allowing a claim based on the assessee's detailed written explanation and inquiries made during assessment cannot be deemed erroneous simply because the order lacks elaborate discussion on the matter.

ITO 20(2)(5), Mumbai v. Smt. Pratima Ashar
107 Taxmann.com 135 · 2019 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considers arguments regarding additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, concerning loans and share application money, and arguments against such additions on merits. The tribunal's decisions often rely on the findings of lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).

Dr Prakash Tiwari v. CIT
160 Taxmann.com 83 · 2024 · High Court
15
citing judgments

An assessment order is not bad in law solely for failing to specify the section under which an addition is made, provided the addition is justified on merits.

DCIT v. Hetal Nitin Shah
159 Taxmann.com 1618 · 2024 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
Chemicon Engineering Consultant (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
142 Taxmann.com 297 · 2022 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Principal\nCommissioner of Income-tax-2, Thane v. Shree Rajlakshmi Textile\nPark (P.) Ltd.
113 Taxmann.com 2 · 2020 · High Court
5
citing judgments
CIT v. Ram Niwas
170 Taxmann 5 · 2008 · High Court
5
citing judgments
COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE
112 ITR 12 · 1978 · Reported
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 69D

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Balaji Polytex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2406/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2406/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata ……..……..…………………....Appellant Vs. M/S Balaji Polytex Pvt. Ltd..…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent 40/, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaecb6388B] Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12,2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 21, Kolkata Dated 30.10.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, The Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Was Filed By The Assessee Declaring Income Of Rs.Nil With Current Year Loss Of Rs.7,99,660/- Which Was Received On 29.03.2019 With Total Income Of Nil With Current Year Loss Of Rs.1,12,00,590/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out At The Residential & Office Premises Of “Health Care Group” On 05.02.2021. During The Search, Reference Of The Assessee Was Found. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That Certain Cash

Section 139Section 250Section 69D

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1139/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A