← All Phrases

“unexplained investment”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69Section 695,821 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained investment is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained investment

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.
361 ITR 220 · 2014 · High Court
328
citing judgments

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah
218 ITR 239 · 1996 · Supreme Court
149
citing judgments

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.

CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.
192 ITR 287 · 1991 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

Judgments citing unexplained investment

Shri Naiina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3267/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

submissions and objections filed by the assessee concluded the assessment by making of fixed deposits found in the name the additions of unexplained investment of Rs.15,43,108/- and Rs.11,79,456/- u/s.69 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 on account of beedi rollers in M/s.Seyad Cotton Mills

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

total income was assessed at Rs.13,76,217/- and addition of Rs.5,00,000/- was made as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the learned I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 3 CIT(A, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle) Allahabad, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/ALLD/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

total income was assessed at Rs.13,76,217/- and addition of Rs.5,00,000/- was made as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the learned I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 3 CIT(A, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 20/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

total income was assessed at Rs.13,76,217/- and addition of Rs.5,00,000/- was made as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the learned I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 3 CIT(A, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee

Divine Kanjiramadathil Ignatious, Kochi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 945/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice-&

For Appellant: Sri.Shivashanker Panicker, AdvocaateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

wrongly reported property value of Rs.1,36,26,000/- as against the actual figure of Rs.13,25,500/- and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69. The data uploaded by the sub- registrar's office mistakenly included an extra digit, reflecting the property value as Rs.1

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia [2022] 145 taxmann.com 546 (Bombay) (ii) Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus purchase) Assessment year 2009-10 - Where Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to conclusively establish fact that purchases were bogus

Ekta Sanitary Store, Focal Point Patiala vs. ACIT, Circle, Patiala, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal and Shri Vipin Sethi, AdovactesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld, CIT (A) has grossly erred in charging the nature of income as unexplained investment, instead of business income, as declared during the course of survey without any basis and while doing so, he has failed to appreciate ... business income." Taxes were duly paid thereon at normal rates. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO treated the surrendered amount as unexplained investments and expenditure under Sections 69 and 69C, on the ground that the source of the income had not been satisfactorily explained. The AO accordingly invoked

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia [2022] 145 taxmann.com 546 (Bombay) (ii) Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus purchase) Assessment year 2009-10 - Where Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to conclusively establish fact that purchases were bogus

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Kolkata vs. Tiru Complex LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 651/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Tiru Complex Llp 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 51, Shakespeare Sarani, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700017, Vs. Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamft966R Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 69C

assessee given show cause as to why the capital introduced of ₹7,01,00,000/- during the year should not be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act. Finally, the ld. AO framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by treating the said amount as unexplained expenditure ... explain as to why the case may not be completed under section 144 by making an addition of Rs. 7,01,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. . In pursuance to the above show cause notice, the assessee neither submitted the desired information

Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 3069/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/22-C, Sahayamatha Colony, Non Corporate Ward 1, T.V.K. Nagar, Chinnalapatti Post, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 301. [Pan:Ahtpb8288M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 246 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 69A

IMFS and beer to the customers and accepted demonetized currency in return is to be assessed u/s.69 of the Act or not as unexplained investment. The ld. Senior DR has raised a question on this that when there was an express bar by Government on transacting business from ... Revenue to make addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned

Kukdi Devi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2926/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kukdi Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 35, West Krishnappa Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Gramani Garden, 3Rd Street, Chennai. Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. [Pan:Cchpk5677C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Akshit Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 384 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 69

Assessing Officer did not accept the same and added 3 I.T.A. No.2926/Chny/24 the cash deposits to an extent of ₹.17,00,000/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act. 6. The ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in para 5.3 of the impugned order and it is noted

Avinash Chaudhry, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2645/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

transfer of funds through transfer voucher. Thus, in view of the above, ii is clear that the cash deposited to the bank account is unexplained investment and deserved to be added to the income of the assessee. Thus, in view of the above facts, the ground taken by the assessee

Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 992/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.992/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk Vs. The Ito, 16, Dharmajivan Society, Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. New Chopati, Varachha Surat Road, Surat. 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abzpd0899G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.21,75,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred ... confirming the action of assessing officer in invoking ITA No.992/SRT/2024/AY.2016-17 Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and thereby taxing the unexplained investment amounting to Rs.21,75,000/- at 30 percentage. 3. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by commissioner

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit ... hereby directed to tax the sum of Rs. 31,73,356/- as business income and an amount of Rs. 45,95, 139/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B totaling to Rs. 77,68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit ... hereby directed to tax the sum of Rs. 31,73,356/- as business income and an amount of Rs. 45,95, 139/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B totaling to Rs. 77,68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit ... hereby directed to tax the sum of Rs. 31,73,356/- as business income and an amount of Rs. 45,95, 139/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B totaling to Rs. 77,68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit ... hereby directed to tax the sum of Rs. 31,73,356/- as business income and an amount of Rs. 45,95, 139/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B totaling to Rs. 77,68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide

Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit ... hereby directed to tax the sum of Rs. 31,73,356/- as business income and an amount of Rs. 45,95, 139/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B totaling to Rs. 77,68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide

Vasu Pokkatharakalam Dinesan, Chandiroor, Alappuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha, Income Tax Office

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

ITA 303/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 144

running of petrol pump at 30% of the gross total turnover of Rs.17,52,76,578 and also made addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs.2,56,363. Thus, the AO made the total addition of Rs.37,95,820. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

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

ITA 229/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

same to the income of the assessee. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.30,347/- under section 69 as unexplained investment being commission charged @ 50 Paise on Rs.60,69,427/- being paid to the broker through whom trading was done treating the transactions as bogus transaction ... same to the income of the assessee. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.30,347/- under section 69 as unexplained investment being commission charged @ 50 Paise on Rs.60,69,427/- being paid to the broker through whom trading was done treating the transactions as bogus transaction