“unexplained investment”

Pankaj Gupta, Bargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Bargarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

SBNs. In the absence of such prove, the deposit of SBN to the extent of Rs.28 lakhs will have to be treated as the unexplained investment of the assessee. In these circumstances, I find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed

Late Shri Jitendra Kumar Bhasne Through Legal Heir Smt. Bharti Bhasne, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

investment in plots at Goragoan and payment for registry of plot at Kerwa Dam at Bhopal remained unexplained and assessing the same as unexplained investment of the appellant from undisclosed sources. Accordingly. the addition of Rs.4,12,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07, of Rs.2 ... Additions of Rs.19,90,000/- in A.Y.2007-08, of Rs.50,09,528/- in A.Y.2008-09 and of Rs.67,64,000/- in A.Y.2009-10 on account of unexplained investment in ICICI Prudential Insurance policy in the name of Smt. Bharti Bhasne substantively in the hands of appellant.” 6.4 I have carefully considered the submission

Smt. Bharti Bhasne, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

investment in plots at Goragoan and payment for registry of plot at Kerwa Dam at Bhopal remained unexplained and assessing the same as unexplained investment of the appellant from undisclosed sources. Accordingly. the addition of Rs.4,12,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07, of Rs.2 ... Additions of Rs.19,90,000/- in A.Y.2007-08, of Rs.50,09,528/- in A.Y.2008-09 and of Rs.67,64,000/- in A.Y.2009-10 on account of unexplained investment in ICICI Prudential Insurance policy in the name of Smt. Bharti Bhasne substantively in the hands of appellant.” 6.4 I have carefully considered the submission

M/S. Jove Enterprises Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

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

basis of said information and assessment was framed by the AO by treating the said payment of Rs. 50 lacs in cash as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR in his grounds of appeal has inter-alia raised the following issues: (1)That

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 82/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit (Central)-1 M/S. Bansal Extraction & बनाम/ Bhopal Exports (P) Ltd., Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M

legality of making reference to Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the Act and using the same as evidence for sustaining impugned addition towards unexplained investment in building and shed at 11, 11-A, new industrial area, Mandideep, Raisen, Bhopal u/s 69B of the act. The appellant has challenged various ... these grounds relate to the assessee’s claim for allowability of depreciation on extra cost of construction of building and shed added as unexplained investment u/s 69B. 12. On perusal of order of first-appeal involved in ITA No. 172/Ind/2020, we observe that although the assessee raised this claim during

Raju Bhikhabhai Bhagat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.- 2(3)(5), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

appeal order. 2. The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 36,05,190/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in the property as per para 8 of the appeal order. 3. The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the written submission and paper book ... Income Tax Authorities. The said consultant did not attend the hearing and ultimately assessment under Section 144 was passed. . On the addition of unexplained investment, the Id. AR of the assessee submits that due to non-compliance and negligence of tax consultant, the addition was made

ITO, Ward-3(2)(10), Surat vs. Sagarbhai Bijalbhai Rabari, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.97/Srt/2017 (Ay 2013-14) & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(5), Surat, Room No.115, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 Shri Sagarbhai Bijaibhai Rabari, 33-34, Ambika Income Tax Officer, Ward- Nagar, Luhar Falia, Nana Vs 3[2][10], Surat, Room No.115, Varachha, Surat-395006 1St Floor, Anavil Business Pan No. Adapr 4150 K Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

furnished by assessee nor any documentary evidence regarding source of investment were furnished. The Assessing Officer thereby treated the investment of Rs.2.25 crores as unexplained investment. ITA Nos.97/SRT/2017 & 183/SRT/2020 (A.Y 13-14) Shri Sagarbhai B Rabari 3. Aggrieved by the addition made by Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before ... loan. The assessee specifically stated that Assessing Officer accepted the loan as genuine, thus, the investment in purchase of land cannot be said the unexplained investment. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that assessee purchased land for a consideration of Rs.3.30 crores, however, payment

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat vs. Shri Sagarbhai Bijalbhai Rabari, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.97/Srt/2017 (Ay 2013-14) & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(5), Surat, Room No.115, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 Shri Sagarbhai Bijaibhai Rabari, 33-34, Ambika Income Tax Officer, Ward- Nagar, Luhar Falia, Nana Vs 3[2][10], Surat, Room No.115, Varachha, Surat-395006 1St Floor, Anavil Business Pan No. Adapr 4150 K Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

furnished by assessee nor any documentary evidence regarding source of investment were furnished. The Assessing Officer thereby treated the investment of Rs.2.25 crores as unexplained investment. ITA Nos.97/SRT/2017 & 183/SRT/2020 (A.Y 13-14) Shri Sagarbhai B Rabari 3. Aggrieved by the addition made by Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before ... loan. The assessee specifically stated that Assessing Officer accepted the loan as genuine, thus, the investment in purchase of land cannot be said the unexplained investment. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that assessee purchased land for a consideration of Rs.3.30 crores, however, payment

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

ADIT. On the basis of these statements, the Ld. AO has made the addition of Rs. 3,53,80,000/- u/s 69 as unaccounted unexplained investment on the protective basis in the hands of the assessee and has made addition in the case of M/s Agrawal buildcon on substantive basis ... lakh which was lesser than the valuation taken by the Stamp Valuation Authority of Rs. 57,70,000/- then also the allegation on unexplained investment cannot be made against the assessee particularly when the land Shri Sanjeev Agrawal Page 38 of 48 has been purchased in the name of partnership

Samir S Mehta, Maharashtra vs. CIT (A)-4, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

Income" and paid tax at applicable normal rate of 34.60%. ITA.42/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Samir Shantilal Mehta 2.5.2] The Assessing Officer treating the difference in stock as "Unexplained Investment" and covered the same under deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income tax and after applying the provisions of section 115BBE ... under which head excess stock found in the Search & Survey is to be taxed ,whether under the head income from business or treated as unexplained investment by applying deeming provisions of section 69B of the Act. 2.5.4] That during the course of Search Proceedings vis-a-vis assessment proceedings

Shri Sanjay Kumar R Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.22,46,615/- as unexplained investment in property during the year under consideration. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned ... asked to show cause vide letter dated 02.12.2016 as to why the purchase consideration of Rs.84,85,600/- should not be treated as his unexplained investment and added to his total income. 5. In response to show cause notice of the Assessing Officer, the assessee, vide letter dated 09.12.2016 furnished