← 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

Steel House, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1464/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1464/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Steel House, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 11, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai. [Pan:Aabfs0085L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.10.2023 Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1057223180(1) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Disposing Of The Appeal Ex Parte Without Considering The Facts Of The Case & The Submissions Made In The Proper Perspective. 2. Merits

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

above period was treated as cash available with the assessee as on 08.11.2016 for which soruces are not explained and assessed the same as unexplained investment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in 4 I.T.A. No.1464/Chny/23 short] and brought to tax. On appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Kandiah Muthukrishnan, Chennai

ITA 1113/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) and Ms. S
Section 143(3)Section 69A

erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.78,23,239/- made as unexplained investment towards value of jewellery found in the residence of the assessee during the course of search 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in relying ... Appellant in his submission, the A.O. cannot treat the Appellant as a person of no means. Treating the entire value of jewellery as unexplained investment by the A.O is arbitrary. The Investigation Officer during the course of search found 2293.300 gms. and 6.79 Ct of diamond and valued

DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi vs. Atnt Infrasturcture Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6220/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 69

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,65,39,595/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the construction of building without appreciating the facts brought on record by AO. 4. The Ld.CIT ... consisting of several items of additions and disallowances. One item of this addition is addition of Rs. 1,65,39,595/- on account of unexplained investment. 5. We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of market price of the land and building whereas

Ratnagiri.ITO1@Incometax.Gov.in, Ratnagiri vs. Mangala Hari Ingale, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed for Statistical Purpose

ITA 1056/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer-1, Mangala Hari Ingale, Ratnagiri. V G-1604, Empire Square, Near S Auto Cluster Chinchwad East, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune – 411019. Pan: Aaipi0141G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.08.2023. The Revenue For A.Y.2018-19 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “I. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Accepting The Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated By Evidence & Which Had Not Stood The Test Of Enquiries In Assessment Proceedings. Ii. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Allowing The Ao To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Him As Per The Provisions U/S Mangala Hari Ingale [R]

Section 112Section 250Section 69

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.68,85,826/- made on account of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 of the Act. vi. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC may be set- aside

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 405/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.405/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.19/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.405/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

Madha Nagar in the name of his wife and connected expenses amounting to Rs.9,60,514 holding that the AO failed to prove that unexplained investment was made by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2015- 16 only. 2.1 Having confirmed the nature of transaction ... cash. 14. The learned CIT(Appeals) having rightly observed that the burden is on the revenue to establish with cogent evidence that the unexplained investment was made by the Respondent-assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, contradicted himself by stating in the earlier part

M/S Jashan Finlease Ltd., Khanna vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69

nature and source thereof’ or the explanation offered by him is not found satisfactory by the AO. Section 69 is attracted to the unexplained investments of which the assessee offers no explanation about the ‘nature and source’ thereof or the explanation is not found satisfactory. Similarly, Section 69A is attracted ... property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable

Rabinder Tranjeet Singh Keer, Nasik vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4480/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 69

treating the difference between construction expenses incurred and payments made from bank account as unexplained investment. 6. The Appellant craves for addition to, deletion, alteration, modification, change any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Appreciating the order of ld.CIT(A), it comes up that the CIT(A) has taken

Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT Central Circle(3), Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 618/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

offered to tax. 2. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,58,524/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of rough working/rough jottings. b). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal ... making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Seo Bridal Studio Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle(3), Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 617/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

offered to tax. 2. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,58,524/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of rough working/rough jottings. b). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal ... making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 310/CHANDI/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

offered to tax. 2. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,58,524/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of rough working/rough jottings. b). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal ... making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 309/CHANDI/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

offered to tax. 2. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,58,524/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of rough working/rough jottings. b). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal ... making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 308/CHANDI/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

offered to tax. 2. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,58,524/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of rough working/rough jottings. b). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal ... making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT-Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 307/CHANDI/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

offered to tax. 2. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,58,524/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of rough working/rough jottings. b). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal ... making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Saandiip Sheshrao Sagane, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Nanded

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 171/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.171/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.R. PotdarFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 144Section 69A

assessee’s sold substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making section 69A r.w.s.115BBE unexplained investment addition of Rs.11,92,000/-, learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that the assessee could not 2 ITA.No.171/PUN/2024 Saandip Sheshrao Sagane file the relevant

Kunal Ragahubir Bhandari, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO (It) Ward 1 (2) 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3646/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151(1)

books of account. Assessing Officer by relying on various case law completed the assessment by treating the payment of %.11,33,000/- as unexplained investment. 8. | Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of Page

Mrs. Kiran Bala, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

having accepted that the sources are unexplained and thus the excess stock and receivables from debtor; recorded on the impounded documents were considered as unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69B and the excess cash found during the course of survey as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income ... cash and receivables found in impounded documents during the course of survey cannot be considered to be business income of the assessee but as unexplained investment, not fully disclosed in the books of account of the assessee u/s 69/69B and the excess cash is to be considered as unexplained money

Rajesh Dashrath Sawale, Kharghar vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 28/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.28/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

outset that learned NFAC has passed the lower appellate order ex parte whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.34,50,000/-. 2 ITA.No.28/PUN/2024 Rajesh Dashrath Sawale 3. The Revenue vehemently argued that the asssessee had been afforded adequate opportunities of hearing

Balaji Madhavrao Malwade, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Maharashtra

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1249/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1249/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Balaji Madhavrao Malwade, Income Tax Officer, Tarang, 2Nd Floor, Ward-4, Panvel Plot No.33, Sector 10, Khanda Colony, Vs. New Panvel (West) – 410206 Maharashtra Pan : Acupm4749A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

case of the company from which the assesee has bought the flat”. 3. This being the clinching factual position that the impugned addition of unexplained investment is based on the specific seized material, it is hereby concluded that the learned lower authorities could not have initiated section 148/147 proceedings

Jmk Exports, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, New Delhi

ITA 1428/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey []

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 68Section 69

only the sales are bogus but the amount representing bogus sales are required to be added to the business income by treating them as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Thus, in sum and substance learned Judicial Member directed the Assessing Officer to convert the disputed addition from section ... very outset, it is necessary to look into the provisions of section 69 of the Act, which reads as under:- Unexplained investments. 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Poly Films Ltd., Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeals of assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed partly and of other years in hand is allowed with consequences to follow as per the determination of issues above and appeals of rev...

ITA 3364/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

cash for purchase of land. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 48 lacs has been made u/s 69 of the 1.T. Act, as unexplained investment. (ii) In the appellate proceedings, appellant submitted that during the assessment proceeding, the appellant vide letter dated 27.02.2014, submitted before the A.O. that the above ... appellant and therefore, findings of the A.O. are erroneous. Therefore, addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act, as unexplained investment, is deleted." 5.1 Learned CIT DR has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, without actually pointing out what was the direct evidence found