← 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

Heena Textile Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 4(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3326/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3326/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Heena Textile Ltd बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(3) Office No. 301, B-65, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Standford Plaza, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Opp Citi Mall, Nr. Morya House, Mumbai- 400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch0454N (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.07.2023 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Expense To The Tune Of Rs.12,30,870/- Which According To The Assessee Was Incurred During The Normal Course Of Business. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.2,73,97,900/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (DR)
Section 144Section 37Section 68Section 69

Best judgment assessment), wherein the AO has made the following additions/disallowance (i) disallowance u/s 37 of the Act of Rs.12,30,870/-, (ii) unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act of Rs.89,09,854/- and (iii) unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.2,73,97,900/- [total ... taking note that the assessee is not into the business of money lending, the AO treated the increase of Rs.89,09,854/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and made an addition of the same. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that section 69 of the Act will

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

proper course would have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by' treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69." 18. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

made wherein he made addition of Rs.2,77,92,524/ addition of Rs.2,77,92,524/- as u/s 69 of the Act i.e. unexplained investment. u/s 69 of the Act i.e. unexplained investment. 4. On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of the On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity ... amount is added as addition u/s69 (unexplained the same amount is added as addition u/s69 (unexplained the same amount is added as addition u/s69 (unexplained investments). He further observes that though the assessee has investments). He further observes that though the assessee has investments). He further observes that though

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Iconic Realtors Ltd., Mumbai-400021

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/MUM/2022[2008-09`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Cc-6(4), Iconic Realtors Ltd., Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 11, B Wing, Mittal Tower, Free India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Mumbai-400021. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabci 7348 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 69C

relating to 12.5% CIDCO of the Act relating to 12.5% CIDCO land at ‘Dronagiri Dronagiri’ area and secondly, addition for r unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act of unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act of Rs.12,23,72,393/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both

Rswm Ltd, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,52,45,000/- u/s 69 on the alleged ground of unexplained investment in total disregard to facts and submissions of the appellant. (ii) That the addition being based on dumb document having no evidentiary value ... independent material, the addition u/s 69 is misconceived and without any basis. (iv) That there being no case of any unrecorded cash payment or unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Rswm Ltd, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 145/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,52,45,000/- u/s 69 on the alleged ground of unexplained investment in total disregard to facts and submissions of the appellant. (ii) That the addition being based on dumb document having no evidentiary value ... independent material, the addition u/s 69 is misconceived and without any basis. (iv) That there being no case of any unrecorded cash payment or unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd, Kharigram

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1929/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,52,45,000/- u/s 69 on the alleged ground of unexplained investment in total disregard to facts and submissions of the appellant. (ii) That the addition being based on dumb document having no evidentiary value ... independent material, the addition u/s 69 is misconceived and without any basis. (iv) That there being no case of any unrecorded cash payment or unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd, Kharigram

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1928/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,52,45,000/- u/s 69 on the alleged ground of unexplained investment in total disregard to facts and submissions of the appellant. (ii) That the addition being based on dumb document having no evidentiary value ... independent material, the addition u/s 69 is misconceived and without any basis. (iv) That there being no case of any unrecorded cash payment or unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Jwalaiah Bejjala, Kapra, R.R District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 5/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jwalaiah Bejjala Kapra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.103, Block No.7 Ward 15(3), Type-A, Apiic, Opp. Hyderabad. Radhika Theatre, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Pan : Alspb9796R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinvas, C.A Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinvas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

record and summarily passed the order without application of mind. 3) The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.16,32,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 4) The ld.CIT(A) further erred in upholding the levy of tax u/s 115BBE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Visakhapatnam vs. Alakram International Trading Company Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 151/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Tax , Central Circle-2, Limited, Visakhapatnam. D.No. V-122/A/1, Quality Haat, 1St Floor, Room No.4, S Aj Farooque Road, Metlabruz, Kolkata-32, Pin: 700018. Pan: Aadcs 7326 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trading Company Pvt Ltd. And protectively in the hands of the assessee-company by considering a sum of Rs. 8,25,03,350/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before ... appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of unexplained investment U/s. 69 r.w.s 9 115BBE of the Act holding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the investment made by the appellant were

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Dolphin Highrise Private Limited, Kilkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Tax , Central Circle-2, Limited, Visakhapatnam. D.No. V-122/A/1, Quality Haat, 1St Floor, Room No.4, S Aj Farooque Road, Metlabruz, Kolkata-32, Pin: 700018. Pan: Aadcs 7326 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trading Company Pvt Ltd. And protectively in the hands of the assessee-company by considering a sum of Rs. 8,25,03,350/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before ... appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of unexplained investment U/s. 69 r.w.s 9 115BBE of the Act holding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the investment made by the appellant were

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Limited, Kollkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sri Bhagavan Niketan Tax , Central Circle-2, Limited, Visakhapatnam. D.No. V-122/A/1, Quality Haat, 1St Floor, Room No.4, S Aj Farooque Road, Metlabruz, Kolkata-32, Pin: 700018. Pan: Aadcs 7326 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trading Company Pvt Ltd. And protectively in the hands of the assessee-company by considering a sum of Rs. 8,25,03,350/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before ... appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of unexplained investment U/s. 69 r.w.s 9 115BBE of the Act holding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the investment made by the appellant were

Devisetti Surya Jyothi, Gaiuwaka vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2016) 372 ITR 83 (CAL). 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in treating the Bank deposits as unexplained investment in the Bank A/cs. u/s 69 of the Act on alleged grounds. 7. For that the appellant having not maintained any books of accounts ... addition so confirmed towards unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act is bad-in-law. 8. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly appreciating the facts on record in relation to appellant's income of the preceding years and consequently in confirming the addition so made

Sri. Sandeep Narayan Gowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1026/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

made the additions of Rs.33,37,261/- on account of unexplained source of credit card payments, of Rs.2,02,00,000/-; on account of unexplained investment in immovable property, of Rs.12,94,108/-; on account of unexplained time deposits, of Rs.1,58,781/-; on account of unexplained income from other

Dilip B. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-II, Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 355/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Ved
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271A

immovable properties were done by the assessee on behalf of Shri Vinod Faria and marked as Annexure A-4 reflected cash transactions and unexplained investments made by the assessee and Shri Vinod Faria. iii) Jurisdiction over this case has been assigned to the AO by the Commissioner of Income ... Shri Vinod Faria] and seized materials and documents (from premises of the Shri Vinod Faria and Group entities) reflected transactions indicating unaccounted and unexplained investment of assessee and Shri Vinod Faria ; and a note book (note book seized from Shri Vinod Faria marked A-4 and also referred to loose

Dilip B. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-II, Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 354/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Ankush kappor (DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak vs. Surender Dalal, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

both on facts and in law in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 29,00,000/-, made by A.O. on account of unexplained investment in construction of house property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed rejecting the explanations and evidences ... appeal challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting addition to Rs.29 lakhs as against Rs.02,28,08,450/- on account of unexplained investment in construction of house property. 3. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee, where the assessee in his ground

Surender Dalal, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7490/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

both on facts and in law in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 29,00,000/-, made by A.O. on account of unexplained investment in construction of house property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed rejecting the explanations and evidences ... appeal challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting addition to Rs.29 lakhs as against Rs.02,28,08,450/- on account of unexplained investment in construction of house property. 3. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee, where the assessee in his ground

DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi vs. Rita Chandiok, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 908/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs Rita Chandiok Central Circle-29, L-41, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaapc2224L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

difference in investments of last year AY (2015-16) and current year (AY 2016-17) shouldn’t be treated, as unexplained ,investment and added back to the income of the assessee. However no proper explanation could be furnished by the assessee as already discussed. 3.5 In view of the above ... amounting to Rs.1,34,94,426/- (Rs.1,83,18,425/- minus Rs.48,23,999/-) is added back to the income of the assessee as unexplained investments under section 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also being satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings

ITO, Ward- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Rashi Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2529/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. M/S. Rashi Wears Pvt. Ltd. Ward-21(1), D-972, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110064 Pan : Aaacr4887R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 145(3)

erred in law in deleting the addition made u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment in-fixed assets amounting to Rs. 22,500/- ignoring that the assessee company deliberately avoided the opportunities provided by the AO to substantiate its claims and the additions were