unexplained investment — 5,821 case laws

Income Tax Officer, Morbi vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas Ranpura, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

under the head "Business Income" and paid tax at applicable normal rate of 34.60%. 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 afier applying the provisions of section 11SBBE ... 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

Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 972/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 972/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Anupama Gupta, Ito, 3118, Sector 24D, बनाम Ward 2, Chandigarh 160024 Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Amnpg8560C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Jatin Verma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 69

treat the transactions made by the assessee by way of payment of Rs.8,00,000/- in cash over and above the registered value as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Moreover, the appellant elaborately relied on legal issues of re-opening of the assessment rather than facts of the case

Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 2520/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2520/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, Ito, Ward-1, Sangli At Po Bedag, Tal-Miraj, Sangli- 416421 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Afspn4271K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare Department By: Shri Manoj Tripathi-Addl. Cit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10-12-2025

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

assessee failed to make proper 3 compliance. Ld. AO passed best judgement assessment making addition of Rs. 74,00,000/- for unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 24.01.2024. However the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Gujrat Trading Co., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 324/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 69

issued. The assessee submitted objections. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied and treated an amount of ₹1,63,43,983 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, adding the same to the income of the assessee and determining total income at ₹1,69,94,103. 3. Against

Tirupati Marbles, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2126/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

estimated disallowances of Rs.43,235/- out of Car expenses and depreciation and finally made an addition of Rs.1,09,00,000/- in respect of unexplained investments. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by passing

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2071/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

order u/s 147/143(3) of Act dated 28/02/2024 assessing total income at Rs 17,84,257/- by making addition of Rs.13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein ... perusing the orders of the lower authorities, we find that in respect of the addition of fixed assets of Rs,13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the property in the balance sheet

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2070/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

order u/s 147/143(3) of Act dated 28/02/2024 assessing total income at Rs 17,84,257/- by making addition of Rs.13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein ... perusing the orders of the lower authorities, we find that in respect of the addition of fixed assets of Rs,13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the property in the balance sheet

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2069/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

order u/s 147/143(3) of Act dated 28/02/2024 assessing total income at Rs 17,84,257/- by making addition of Rs.13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein ... perusing the orders of the lower authorities, we find that in respect of the addition of fixed assets of Rs,13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the property in the balance sheet

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2068/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

order u/s 147/143(3) of Act dated 28/02/2024 assessing total income at Rs 17,84,257/- by making addition of Rs.13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein ... perusing the orders of the lower authorities, we find that in respect of the addition of fixed assets of Rs,13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the property in the balance sheet

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2067/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

order u/s 147/143(3) of Act dated 28/02/2024 assessing total income at Rs 17,84,257/- by making addition of Rs.13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein ... perusing the orders of the lower authorities, we find that in respect of the addition of fixed assets of Rs,13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the property in the balance sheet

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2066/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

order u/s 147/143(3) of Act dated 28/02/2024 assessing total income at Rs 17,84,257/- by making addition of Rs.13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein ... perusing the orders of the lower authorities, we find that in respect of the addition of fixed assets of Rs,13,65,317/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the property in the balance sheet

Smt. Aakruti Ruia, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2279/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153C

r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act as on 25th Mar-2023 wherein addition of Rs. 76,14,573/- was made on account of unexplained investment of gold coins and jewelry. . Page 3 of 8 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contested the addition

Pagadala Velugonda Reddy, Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 726/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.726/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pagadala Velugonda Reddy Lig 284, Hudco, Bhilai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Abmpv7318K

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chennai has erred in upholding addition of entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.19,20,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 5. The appellant reserves the right ... ACIT-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), resulting in an addition of Rs.19,20,000/- treating entire cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 3. That aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC

Satyanarayana Koduru, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 491/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

dated 10/01/2024 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,73,12,840/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 pertaining to purchase of immovable property of Rs.59,84,000/-; (ii) addition under section 69 of the Act in respect of the registration charges

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Donkala Chenchu Narasimha Rao, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 460/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 69

assessee, rejected the contentions of the assessee and made an addition of Rs.1,06,48,000/- considering it as on-money payment, as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before ... only issue emanating from the above grounds is with respect to the sustaining of the addition of Rs.1,06,48,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the incriminating material based on which the addition is made does

Donkala Chenchu Narasimha Rao, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 408/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 69

assessee, rejected the contentions of the assessee and made an addition of Rs.1,06,48,000/- considering it as on-money payment, as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before ... only issue emanating from the above grounds is with respect to the sustaining of the addition of Rs.1,06,48,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the incriminating material based on which the addition is made does

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 Pune, Pune vs. Dipti Narendra Lulla, Pune

ITA 1065/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(2)

establish that repayment is genuine and these transaction are not bogus transaction. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.14,55,15,356/- is been considered as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act being source of squaring of loan is been added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings ... unsecured loan has been adjudicated in the above mentioned para, therefore no separate adjudication is required. Thus addition of Rs.14,55,15,356 as unexplained investment u/s 69 is hereby deleted. Accordingly ground of appeal no 5 is allowed. Further, disallowance of Rs.17,67,401 made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Jaya Pradeep, Chennai

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

ITA 960/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

accordingly issued a show-cause notice as to why the alleged on-money payment of Rs.25,78,98,000/- should not be treated as unexplained investment u/s.69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 11. The assessee objected to the proposed addition of the AO, submitting that the seized documents ... above submissions, it was contended that no addition of Rs.25,78,98,000/- is warranted in the hands of the assessee towards alleged unexplained investment u/s.69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 27. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.25

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 on account of cash credit and addition made u/s 69 as unexplained investments which tantamount to double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the appellant. 13.0 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment without considering the fact that investments were duly recorded in books of account and details of the same i.e. purchase deeds were furnished during

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 on account of cash credit and addition made u/s 69 as unexplained investments which tantamount to double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the appellant. 13.0 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment without considering the fact that investments were duly recorded in books of account and details of the same i.e. purchase deeds were furnished during

“unexplained investment”

Leading authorities on unexplained investment

Judgments citing unexplained investment

Income Tax Officer, Morbi vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas Ranpura, Morbi

Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chandigarh

Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Gujrat Trading Co., Kolkata

Tirupati Marbles, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC - 4(3), Kolkata

Smt. Aakruti Ruia, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

Pagadala Velugonda Reddy, Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai

Satyanarayana Koduru, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Donkala Chenchu Narasimha Rao, Nellore

Donkala Chenchu Narasimha Rao, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 Pune, Pune vs. Dipti Narendra Lulla, Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Jaya Pradeep, Chennai

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad