← 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

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 701/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 147 of the Act made the addition of the entire consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000, under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ... regarding the nature and source of the investment is found to be not satisfactory, the value of the investment can be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. However, in the present case, no such allegation has been raised by the Revenue. Thus the addition made

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 700/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 147 of the Act made the addition of the entire consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000, under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ... regarding the nature and source of the investment is found to be not satisfactory, the value of the investment can be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. However, in the present case, no such allegation has been raised by the Revenue. Thus the addition made

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 699/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 147 of the Act made the addition of the entire consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000, under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ... regarding the nature and source of the investment is found to be not satisfactory, the value of the investment can be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. However, in the present case, no such allegation has been raised by the Revenue. Thus the addition made

M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2401/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2400/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2399/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2398/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2397/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

ACIT, Cenral Circle-4, Thane vs. M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2214/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai vs. Mm/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2213/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

ACIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Eagle Infra India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assess

ITA 2212/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 2212 To 2214/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4, M/S Eagle Infra India Ltd., Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Vs. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, Eagle Nest Building, Behind 16-Z Wagle Industrial Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar Estate, Thane (W)-400604. 421003. Pan No. Aacce 7247 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

upholding the addition made of Rs. learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity

Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 282/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

order under Section 132(5) was passed in respect of above promissory notes in the case of Shri Jitendra R. Patel in which unexplained investment in promissory notes was held to be assessable as income of Shri Jitendra R. Patel. An order under Section 132(5) read with Section ... been passed in the case of Shri Bailal M. Patel on 15/07/1988 in which income under Section 69 of the Act by way of unexplained investment in promissory notes has been held to belong to Shri Bhailal M. Patel as a protective measure. Considering various aspects of the case

Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 281/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

order under Section 132(5) was passed in respect of above promissory notes in the case of Shri Jitendra R. Patel in which unexplained investment in promissory notes was held to be assessable as income of Shri Jitendra R. Patel. An order under Section 132(5) read with Section ... been passed in the case of Shri Bailal M. Patel on 15/07/1988 in which income under Section 69 of the Act by way of unexplained investment in promissory notes has been held to belong to Shri Bhailal M. Patel as a protective measure. Considering various aspects of the case

Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 280/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

order under Section 132(5) was passed in respect of above promissory notes in the case of Shri Jitendra R. Patel in which unexplained investment in promissory notes was held to be assessable as income of Shri Jitendra R. Patel. An order under Section 132(5) read with Section ... been passed in the case of Shri Bailal M. Patel on 15/07/1988 in which income under Section 69 of the Act by way of unexplained investment in promissory notes has been held to belong to Shri Bhailal M. Patel as a protective measure. Considering various aspects of the case

Mr. Tikamdas Arjundas Khemchandani, Ulhasnagar vs. ACIT, CC-2, Thane

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Tikamdas Arjundas Khemchandani, R. No. 1, Bk No. 887, Goal Chakra, Sector-19, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra 421 003 Pan: Apgpk3292R ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 6Th Floor, R. No. 13, Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Esate, Thane Thane-400 604 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Sanghvi Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

undisclosed business of trading in cloth. 6. The onus is upon the assessee to prove the source of alleged cash found. When unexplained investment / unaccounted sales are not substantiated, the entire investment is to be added under Section 69A of the IT Act. It is undisputed facts on record that

Shri Bharat Arora, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circl-2E, Jalandhar

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

ITA 196/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)

action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.23,00,000/-, on account of investment in property, by treating the same as unexplained investment, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify

ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi vs. Karsan Bhi Khimabhai Patel, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2016/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Shri Karsan Bhai Khimabhai Central Circle-17, Patel, 8A/8, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005. Pan-Antpp5589K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

inquiry from the concerned builder about the transactions. The AO without making independent inquiry, was not justified in treating the total sale consideration as unexplained investment. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby, affirmed. Ground No.3 raised

Shri Premdeep Rajput, Indore vs. The Central Circle Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 4/IND/2023[2023]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Premdeep Rajput, Acit, 47-B, Sector A, Central Circle, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, Ujjain Vs. Sanwer Road, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpr8534N Assessee By Shri Sushil Jethani & Shri V.K. Bhandari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 271ASection 28Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

facts and circumstances of the case, there remains no ambiguity that the amount of Rs. 8,16,000/- clearly comes under the ambit of unexplained investments as envisaged u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said amount of Rs. 8,16,000/-is, therefore, considered as the assessee ... erred in not treating the income of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- declared during the course of search carried out on 15.12.2016 as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.r.t. 115BBE of the Act. We notice that during the course of search excess stock of gold weighing 6433.812 gms was found amounting

Amsons Steel Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Cir-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 970/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.970/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(1) Plot No. A/16, Wagle Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Industrial Estate, Road Road, Mumbai-400020. No.8, Thane-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4716G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 06.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering Fair Market Value Of The Properties As On 30.05.2013 Determined By The District Valuation Officer-1, It Deptt, Mumbai-12 Vide His Report Dated 21.02.2019 As Against Stamp Duty Value Adopted By Learned Assessing Officer Even Through Your Appellant Sold At Prevailing Market Rate At Arm’S Length Principle. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Giving The Benefit Of Curative Amendment Inserted In Section 43 Ca By Finance Act, 2018 W.E.F. 01.04.2019 & Subsequently Finance Act, 2020 W.E.F.

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43C

relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the CIT(A) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly

Taruna Kataria, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 584/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhavesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 68

assessment year 2005-06, raising following grounds: 1. a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the unexplained investment u/s 68.of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Rs. 16,60,689/- of Long Term Capital Gain. Mrs. Taruna Kataria 2 b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal ... bogus transactions and accordingly treated the sum of Rs. 16,60,689 / accordingly treated the sum of Rs. 16,60,689 / - as unexplained investment of the appellant within the unexplained investment of the appellant within the unexplained investment of the appellant within the meaning of section