← 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

Prashant Prakash Nilawar, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-6(1), Nariman Point Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

ITA 2318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

judicially recognised as a fair and reasonable benchmark for assessing normal possession. Courts have repeatedly held that possession of further evidence, be regarded as unexplained investment. 82. The mother’s age and long married life, the family’s established financial means, and the cultural tradition of accumulating gold ornaments through

Wudstay Travels Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2996/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Wudstay Travels Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited D8/4 First Floor, Of Income Tax Circle 25 (1) Exclusive Floors Dlf Phase New Delhi -5 Gurgaon Dlf Qe So Gurgaon Pan No. Aabcw6379A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 69

case Ld. CIT (A ) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 3,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in time deposit. 6. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Kavya Saurabh Rastogi, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3773/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarkavya Saurabh Rastogi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Vishwa Autar Jamani, Moradabad A-61, Lajpat Nagar, Moradbad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Aipr8080J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 50CSection 54

residential house is was also not appeared in the balance sheet, therefore, the AO added the difference of Rs. 25,35,000/- as unexplained investment to the total income of the assessee. However, during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidences u/R 46A and sent ... discharged the initial onus cast upon him to establish the creditworthiness of the mother and sisters. Hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the unexplained investment of Rs. 25,35,000/- which has correctly been affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above, we do not 6 find

Aapna Marble, G T Road Bhucho Kalan vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II Bathinda

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

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

recorded. At the time of survey, one of the partner of the firm agreed to surrender th amount mentioned n loose papers as on unexplained Investment. Subsequently, the said partner retracted from the statement made. The AO made addition to the assesee's income on the basis of loose papers

Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,15,37,991/- on account of unexplained investment ignoring the facts that these transactions are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of M/s Kushal Limited which were engaged in providing accommodation entries. ii. On the facts ... No.168 & 122/Srt/2025/AY 19-20 Deepesh V Agarwal AO had disallowed Rs.1,15,37,991/- u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investment. The Ld. AR has relied on the submission made by assessee before the CIT(A). He had given the contract notes for purchase and sale, ledge

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,15,37,991/- on account of unexplained investment ignoring the facts that these transactions are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of M/s Kushal Limited which were engaged in providing accommodation entries. ii. On the facts ... No.168 & 122/Srt/2025/AY 19-20 Deepesh V Agarwal AO had disallowed Rs.1,15,37,991/- u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investment. The Ld. AR has relied on the submission made by assessee before the CIT(A). He had given the contract notes for purchase and sale, ledge

Himabindu Penmatsa, Seethammadhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhimabindu Penmatsa, 50-1-66/2, Asr Nagar, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh - 530013 ............... Appellant Pan: Aljpp0714J V/S Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road, ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80T

reasons mentioned above) You are requested to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 19,69,830/-should not be treated as unexplained investment. Your objections to the above with valid and supporting evidences may be filed on or before 10-09-2018, falling which the assessment will ... lack of cogent evidence. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs.9,69,830/- under section 69 of the Act as an unexplained investment in the acquisition of the immovable property. 7. The CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition

Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 976/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 976/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, The Ito, बनाम 3010, Sector 38-D, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Acepk0729N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Anil Arora, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148A

from health issues and staying abroad with family. 3. That the addition of 17,55,338/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head 'unexplained investments' is unjustified, as the said amount represents reinvestment of matured fixed deposits and not any fresh unexplained income. 4. That the reassessment proceedings

Pichaimani Gunasundari, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Nc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2333/CHNY/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Pichaimani Gunasundari, The Ito, No.65, Saratha Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1), Ganapathi Nagar, Tambaram. 4Th Street, Urapakkam, Kancheepuram-603 210. [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the assessment of Rs. 20,10,000/-being the purchase consideration paid for an immovable property as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 10. The NFAC, Delhi erred

Vinod Jain, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 505/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

authorities erred in law and on facts in treating the silver articles of Rs 27,00,000 found during the course of search as unexplained investment when they were recorded in the financial statements of the appellant and his family members. 7. That the learned v erred ... given after the prohibiting order executed. Therefore the AO treated the value of silver jewellery as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. The Revenue also seized the gold jewellery valued at Rs. 96,77,770/- since the assessee was not able to substantiate with his books of accounts

Sachin Shrikant Naik, Santacruz East, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: 03/09/2025
Section 69A

credible rebuttal”, proceeded to treat the alleged sum of “credible rebuttal”, proceeded to treat the alleged sum of ₹50,88,000/– as unexplained investment within the meaning of as unexplained investment within the meaning of as unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69 of the Act, thereby adding ... Assessing Officer rightly added the monthly instalments the Assessing Officer rightly added the monthly instalments the Assessing Officer rightly added the unexplained investmen unexplained investment of Rs. 50,88,000 to the total income of the t of Rs. 50,88,000 to the total income of the assessee under

ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi vs. Saloni Narang, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Saloni Narang, Tax, Central Circle-15, 5, Dr. G.G. Narang Marg, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Vs Cavalary Lane, Centre, Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aafpn2692C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

assessee at Rs.2,23,90,110/- after making addition of Rs.2,01,34,392/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and of Rs.5,44,752/- on account of unaccounted interest. The ld. CIT(A) through his order dated 22.12.2017 partly deleted the additions made

Hemant Naresh Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. 4, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

despite the facts that the valuation of the 12 flats as decided by the partners was of Rs.6,28,68,218/- and hence the unexplained investment in acquiring the ownership of the 12 flats was of Rs.4,79,82,099/- of the assessee. IT(SS)A No.68, 70 & ITA. No.170/Srt/2023 ... No.68, 70 & ITA. No.170/Srt/2023 A.Ys 15-16, 18-19 & 20-21 Sh. Hemant N. Agarwal account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in respect of shop in Westfield Shopping Complex. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing that the project was developed by M/s Kuberji Developers

Partheeban Vignesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Taxation Ward, Chennai

ITA 2265/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2265/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Partheebanvignesh The Income Tax Officer, Old No.6, New No.4, Vs. Intl. Taxation Ward-2(2), Balaji Nagar, 1St Cross Street, Chennai. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 097. [Pan:Ankpv3468N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Smt.Lekah, C.A प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Soloman, Jcit

For Appellant: Smt.Lekah, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Soloman, JCIT

whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs. 96 lakhs on account of unexplained investment for purchase of immovable property in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

Sri Vinayaga Builders and Homes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2104/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

financial statement filed on 31.05.2021. Likewise, for AY 2017-18, the AO is noted to have added ₹4,80,00,000/- as unexplained investment taking note of the purchase value of immovable property and also added a sum of ₹16.20 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money, since

Sri Vinayaga Builders and Homes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2103/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

financial statement filed on 31.05.2021. Likewise, for AY 2017-18, the AO is noted to have added ₹4,80,00,000/- as unexplained investment taking note of the purchase value of immovable property and also added a sum of ₹16.20 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money, since

Jalpa Nilesh Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4446/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. D/R) (virtually appeared)
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 as alleged unexplained investment on the plea that the appellant has paid cash towards purchase of property, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the facts

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reported in [2021] 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) has held as under:- “Section 69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment

Mr.Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Sivagangai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Karaikudi

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

ITA 1955/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 44ASection 69Section 69A

IMFS and beer to the customers and accepted demonetized currency in return is to be assessed u/s.69 of the Act or not as unexplained investment. The ld. Senior DR has raised a question on this that when there was an express bar by Government on transacting business from ... Revenue to make addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue