ARUN MOHAN,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1, BANGALORE

ITA 2980/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 September 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the balance investment of Rs. 10,99,023/- by providing documentary evidence of fund transfers and withdrawals. The addition of Rs. 30,900/- due to an overstatement of stamp duty was also directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an NRI, purchased a property without filing a return. The AO treated the entire investment as unexplained. The CIT(A) partially deleted the addition but confirmed a significant portion.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of investment in property, and if the stamp duty amount was correctly calculated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081914873(1) dated 22-Oct-2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-

16.2.

The present appeal has been instituted by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereaft

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →