← 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

Swapnil Rathi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (1), Indore

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

ITA 413/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Swapnil Rathi, Dcit-2(1) 17Bf, Scheme No.74C, Indore Vs. Vilay Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afwpr 6790 K Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

Section 132Section 132ASection 147Section 153CSection 68

erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO under Section 68 amounting to Rs. 74353000 towards unexplained investment based on alleged dumb documents without any corroborating material on record. 2. The learned CIT(A) and AO failed to appreciate that there is no evidence of receipt or investment

Meenu Ajay Pathak, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.- 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

violation of principles of natural justice and the same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Addition by treating the term capital gain as unexplained investment under section 68 of the Act unjustified - Rs.89.06.550/- i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. in making addition

Umesh Prasad Sahu, Sundargarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/CTK/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalit(Ss)A No.11 To 16/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2018 14 To 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bibekananda MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR

No.68/CTK/2023: Asst.year: 2019-2020 reply in support of its appeals nor has it filed any documents to explain the unexplained investment, etc. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant another opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld CIT(A). Considering

Shri Sham Lal & Sons, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Inome Tax Central, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 103/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

cash cannot be said to be business having no direct link with business. Accordingly, amount of Rs.8,12,300/- is being treated as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the form of cash not recorded in Books of account to be taxed under the provisions of section

Shri Sanjay Chandrakant Gaonkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 364/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Chandrakant Income Tax Officer 26(1)(2) Gaonkar Kautilya Bhavan,C-41 To C-43, Vs. O-270, Rbi Staff Quarters, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, North Avenue Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054 Pan No. Aimpg3359C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 59,46,260/- on account of alleged Shree Sanjay Chandrakant Gaonkar unexplained investments as per para 4 of the impugned order. The reasons assigned by him for doing the same are wrong and insufficient. Provisions of the act ought

The Income Tax Officer, Samba vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Samba

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

Whether the Ld. C1T(A) was right in law and fact deleting the additions of Rs.11,37,300/- made on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs.5,56,880/-out of depreciation allowance even though the assessee could not prove the genuineness of purchase of Plant and Machinery during ... account 40A(3) amount to Rs 16,30,510/- vi) addition on account unexplained credit amount of Rs 33 lakh, vii) addition of unexplained investment amount to Rs. 11,37,300/- and Rs. 5,56,800/- out of depreciation allowance and viii) disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Potluri Ravi L/R Late Potluri Babu Rao, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 120/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Potluri Ravi, Smt. Potluri Tax, Circle-2(1), Annapurna, Ms. Potluri Vijayawada. Madhavi & Smt. Surya Vijaya Maruthi (L/Rs Of Late Potluri Babu Rao), D.No. 29-23-27, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520002. C.O. No.31/Viz/2020 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sri Potluri Ravi, Smt. Potluri Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Annapurna, Ms. Potluri Tax, Circle-2(1), Madhavi & Smt. Surya Vijaya Vijayawada. Maruthi (L/Rs Of Late Potluri Babu Rao), D.No. 29-23-27, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520002. (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Before the Ld. CIT(A), the primary objection of the assessee was with respect to the addition of Rs. 2,30,30,522/- as unexplained investment without providing adequate opportunity to file objections to the Ld. DVO report. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the written submissions made by the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

Vijay Kumar Kesar, [2010] 327 ITR 497, wherein the jurisdictional High Court has held as under :- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 2000-01 - Where addition was based solely on assessee's confession during survey which was later retracted and Commissioner (Appeals), after considering ... Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of ITO Vs. Vijay document during survey cannot be sustained. The issue was addition of unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act, where the addition was based solely on assessee’s confession during the survey which was later retracted and Commissioner (Appeals), after

Brij Mohan Das Devi Prasad, Sehore vs. The ACIT Central Circle -2 Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 428/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 69Section 69A

erred in upholding the action of the Ld.AO by treating the excess stock found during the survey proceedings as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Page 1 of 24 M/s.Brij Mohandas Devi Prasad Assessment year 2018-19 2. On facts and circumstances of the case ... proceeding, the AO issued notice dated 21.06.2021 asking the assessee as to why the excess stock and excess cash should not be treated as unexplained investment in stock u/s 69 and unexplained money u/s 69A. Finding no reply from assessee, though the AO accepted the additional income

Macro Proprieties Private Limited, M 28 Income Tax Colony Tonk Road Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT
Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

circumstances of the case in recording findings of fact contrary to the assessment order in holding that Assessing officer has rightly arrived at the unexplained investment of Rs 15,89,250/- made in the name of BenamidarSmt Vijay Laxmi Verma when the AO has made addition of the identical amount ... Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 are inter related hence they are clubbed together for adjudication and with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment in the immovable property in the name of banamidaar Sh. Vishnu Kumar Nakwal. The AO observed that certain loose papers/documents/sale agreements/sale deeds were found

M/S Blue City Township & Colonizers, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,53,98,000/- on account of unexplained investment as per the provisions of section 69 of the I. T. Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, no addition for undisclosed investment ... were added back to the income of the Assessee / 69 of the Act as unexplained Investment. In the written submissions filed in appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed the copy of statement given by the retired cashier Sh Raj Kumar Gupta 09- 04-2015 for the first time

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3306/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

incorporated on 13th April 2010. (ii) In the search account, which took place on 18th October 2011, no cash, valuables or any kind of unexplained investment appear to have been found for the year under consideration. (iii) During the course of post search proceedings, all the buyers from whom ... parties and is an usual practice in the business of real estate. During the course of search, no cash or any (x) other unexplained investment etc. has been found to corroborate that any on money has been received by the appellant. The difference in rate of booking/sale between different buyers

Satishkumar Keshavlal, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesatish Kumar Keshavlal V. Ito (International Taxation)-3(1)(1) 18Th Floor C/O. H.C Mehta 7 Associates Air India Building, Nariman Point 26, Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre Mumbai – 400 021 Gulmohur Cross Road No. 9 Juhu, Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Auqpk4033R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

Mahindra Mutual Fund, and requested to Show Cause as to why the said investment of ₹.20,00,000/- should not be treated as his unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Further, Assessing Officer observed that as per 26AS Assessee has received interest ... respond, and did not file any reply, accordingly, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment by making addition of ₹.20,00,000/- being Unexplained Investments in Mutual Funds and added ₹.1,62,570/- being receipt of unexplained interest and added to the total income of the assessee. Page

Ruia Pradeep Bajranglal HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD 25(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2110/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanruia Pradeep Ito, Ward-25(3)(3), Bajranglal Huf Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Hari Bkc, Bandra, Vs. Nivas, Malviya Road, Mumbai-400051. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahr0481E (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Dinkle Hariya &For Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making addition of Rs 2,63,055/-, on the ground of being alleged unexplained investment in shares 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called

Dayaram Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 117/RPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 117/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Rajiv Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition of Rs.29,76,000/- being unexplained investment u/s. 69 by treating the assessee as beneficiary. The addition made by the A.O and treating the assessee as beneficiary is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled

Mr Abbasali Chinikamwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Abbasali Chinikamwalla Ito 2(1)(1) 4Th Floor, 48, 293, Sopariwala House, Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor, Pincess Street, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No.Acdpc3654P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Mehta/ Shri Bharat Patel : Ms. Indira Adakil Revenue By : 04.07.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Addition Of Rs. 14,48,000/- Being The Cash Deposit During The Demonetization Period As Unexplained Income U/S 69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Mehta/ Shri Bharat PatelFor Respondent: 04.07.2023
Section 250Section 69A

cash amount in this possession and the same was deposited during the demonetization period. The Ld.AO made an addition of the impugned amount as unexplained investment in hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. It is observed that the assessee has furnished additional evidences before the first appellate

Smt. Lalitha Padamchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Lalitha Kothari The Ito Ward-25(2)(5), 2/4, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, Western Express Highway, Vile Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Parle East, Near Airport Side Bandra (East) Service Road, Mumbai City, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400099. Pan No. Aacpl 3131 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ritesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 6Section 68Section 69C

erred in confirming the Smt. Lalitha Kothari 2 additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s.69C of the Act amounting to Rs.29,10,000/-. 3. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... bogus transaction without any authenticity and the AO treated the loan received by appellant to the tune of Rs.29,10,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act. 5.3. All the facts of the case, Grounds of appeal, statement of facts, online submissions of the appellant and the case

M/S A J Coal Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7289/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

suppliers). The addition in been purchased from the bogus suppliers). The addition in been purchased from the bogus suppliers). The addition in respect of unexplained investment made in stock Purchased respect of unexplained investment made in stock Purchased respect of unexplained investment made in stock Purchased form undisclosed party

ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S A J Coal Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5718/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

suppliers). The addition in been purchased from the bogus suppliers). The addition in been purchased from the bogus suppliers). The addition in respect of unexplained investment made in stock Purchased respect of unexplained investment made in stock Purchased respect of unexplained investment made in stock Purchased form undisclosed party

Shashi Bhushan Sinha, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circl-3, Patna

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

ITA 13/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 153A

assessee. He has admitted about advancement of a loan amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- to Shri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. Hence, addition on account of unexplained investment is sustainable. 10. We have duly considered the rival contentions. The sole basis on making the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- on account ... unexplained investment in loan given to Shri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad is the reply of the assessee to Question No. 18 asked during a statement recorded on 20.06.2011. It is pertinent to note that though this statement is recorded under section 131, but on oath, at the most