← 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

Kodali Suresh Babu, Labbipet vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (International Taxation), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

which was accepted by Ld AO and addition made for the balance amount of Rs. 1,73,17,150/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO also did not give effect to the extent of Rs. 79,50,000/- with reference ... total addition of Rs. 1,73,17,150/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 69 of the Act towards alleged unexplained investment in purchases of property. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not accepting the amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- paid by the father

Chethan Narayan, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1109/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 234Section 250Section 69A

Page 9 of 22 This sum of Rs.1,13,86,946/- is brought to tax as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act.” 3. From the above submission, the AO noted that the wife of the assessee has shown Rs.40,36,613/- in her balance sheet comprising of Rs.1 ... search = 1,53,85,625 X 3552.42 --------------------------------- = Rs. 1,13,86,946/- This sum of Rs.1,13,86,946/- is brought to tax as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Page

Jignesh Chimanlal Jobanputra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4008/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 148Section 69

confirming the actions of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 31,89,681/- being unsecured loans and treating it as unexplained investments, thereby completely misunderstanding the factual matrix of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, erred in confirming the actions ... Appeals)- NFAC erred in confirming the actions of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 31,89,681/- on account of alleged unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. The assessee is an individual and is proprietor of M/s. Manav Display engaged

Jagdish Kaniyalal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3649/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68Section 69

Assessment Year 2017-18 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1-Addition on account of unexplained investment 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in considering the amount ... paid by the Appellant for purchase of immovable property as unexplained investment and taxing the same under section 69 of the Act Ground No. 2-Addition on account of unexplained Cash Credit 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 694/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

consisting of a sum of Rs.6,86,57,800/- as unexplained cash credit and the balance sum of Rs.21,81,15,856/- as unexplained investment, as originally mentioned in the body of the reassessment order) to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 69 / 69A read with section

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

consisting of a sum of Rs.6,86,57,800/- as unexplained cash credit and the balance sum of Rs.21,81,15,856/- as unexplained investment, as originally mentioned in the body of the reassessment order) to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 69 / 69A read with section

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

consisting of a sum of Rs.6,86,57,800/- as unexplained cash credit and the balance sum of Rs.21,81,15,856/- as unexplained investment, as originally mentioned in the body of the reassessment order) to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 69 / 69A read with section

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

consisting of a sum of Rs.6,86,57,800/- as unexplained cash credit and the balance sum of Rs.21,81,15,856/- as unexplained investment, as originally mentioned in the body of the reassessment order) to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 69 / 69A read with section

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

consisting of a sum of Rs.6,86,57,800/- as unexplained cash credit and the balance sum of Rs.21,81,15,856/- as unexplained investment, as originally mentioned in the body of the reassessment order) to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 69 / 69A read with section

Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1124/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Lilaben Rameshbhai The Dy.Cit Savaliya Vs Central Circle-1(1) Legal Heir Of Rameshbhai Ahmedabad N.Savaliya 12, Paritosh Bungalows Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Abjps 1312 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/01/2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made By The Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir Of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

addition made by the Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11 2 Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained investment in purchase of land at Hathijan amounting to Rs.79,36,580/-. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred ... objections against reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objection. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.79,36,580/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land u/s.69 of the Act. Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11 The Assessing Officer

Karthik Agencies, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.256/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Karthik Agencies, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, Karthik Agencies, Ward 1, 3Rd Cross Co-Operative Colony, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri 635001. [Pan: Aagfk 1633F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69

order under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 17.12.2019 and made addition on account of cash deposits during demonetisation period treated as unexplained investments under section 69 and taxed u/s115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Upon further appeal, the position remained the same and the assessee

Nagappa Chettiyar Srinivasan, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward 1, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 155/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.155/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Nagappa Chettiyar Srinivasan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.71, Kullalar Street, Ward 1, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri 635 112. [Pan: Bzqps 1696Q]

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2019 and made addition on account of cash deposits during demonetisation period treated as unexplained investments under section 69 and taxed u/s115BBE of the Act. Upon further appeal, the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly

Senthil, Chennai vs. ITO, Wrd-6(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.07/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri. Senthil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Stoponshop, Non Corporate Ward 6(5) No.113/87, Parameswaran Nagar, Chennai. Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. [Pan: Ckups 7498L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)

appear even before the ld. first appellate authority. 03. From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment and unexplained money under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’). Upon further appeal, the assessee did not appear before the first appeal

Sathyamoorthy Ganesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward- 19(6), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.35/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sathyamoorthy Ganesh Ito Old No.70 New No.15, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), बनाम/ Vs. Kumaran Colony, First Street, Chennai. Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Boupg-1761-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal is confirmation of certain addition of unexplained investment for Rs.29.57 Lacs as made by Ld. Assessing Officer while framing an assessment u/s 144 on 20.09.2019. The addition represents credits in the bank accounts. Though the assessee

Manishkumar Kishore Bhatia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3926/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish BhatiaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 69

assessee had not made any investments in the Mutual Fund of Rs. 28,00,000/- and saving Bank Interest of Rs. 5011/- as unexplained investments made in Mutual Fund during the Financial years 2010-11. 2. In view of the above facts of the case ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein he has treated the entire amount invested in mutual fund amounting to Rs. 28,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The AO also made an addition of Rs. 5,011/- as unexplained income based on Form 26AS. Aggrieved

Vipul Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

officer made addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000 under section 69 of the Act on the alleged ground that the said amount represents unexplained investment made by the appellant. 2.3 On appeal, the CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 31.10.2018, confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Against

Sri Sravan Kumar Neela, Nalgonda vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

books of account nor otherwise explained as to its nature and source. The assessee disputed being assessed in its respect – which was as unexplained investment u/s. 69A, and, in any case, sought deduction for the loss on account of its confiscation. The Tribunal, distinguishing the decisions relied upon ... deductions under the provisions which correspond to such heads of income will not arise. The provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case

Sri Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, Guntur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

books of account nor otherwise explained as to its nature and source. The assessee disputed being assessed in its respect – which was as unexplained investment u/s. 69A, and, in any case, sought deduction for the loss on account of its confiscation. The Tribunal, distinguishing the decisions relied upon ... deductions under the provisions which correspond to such heads of income will not arise. The provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case

Chandrappa Nalina, Kadur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, this issue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 357/BANG/2024[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Chandrappa Nalina, Vs. Ward-1, 1 Harshitha Enterprises, Chikmagalur. U.B Road, Opp. To Water Tank, Kadur-577 548. Pan – Axdpn 2315 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department (DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee has not filed return of income, for want of proper explanation the entire cash deposit of Rs.19,24,000/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69A and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Page 3 of 6 4. Aggrieved

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Jyoti A. Kulkarni, Pune

ITA 5119/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL