“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

Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2077/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

incriminating material was found during the course of search warranting such additions/disallowances. ITA No.2076/Del/2023 & Others * Rs.85,60,040/- by treating it as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69. * Rs.27,55,000/- by treating it as alleged unexplained credit u/s 68. * Rs.59,01,048/-by treating it as alleged unexplained credit

Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2076/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Section 1

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Section 1

Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Ranchi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward W2(2), Ranchi

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

ITA 32/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2017-18 Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Mansi Mansi Niketan, Niketan, Opp Opp- Ward-2(2), 2(2), Pratibha Apt., South Office Pratibha Apt., South Office Ranchi. Para Doranda, Ranchi. Para Doranda, Ranchi. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Akpps 1707 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek S. Sinha, Ar With Ms. Astha, Ar Ar With Ms. Astha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Khubchand T Pandya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08 /08/2025 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 01/01/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Ranchi Ranchi/10710/2019-20 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Abhishek S. Sinha With Ms. Astha Abhishek S. Sinha With Ms. Astha, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee. Assessee. Shri Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr. Dr Represented On Behalf Of Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek S. Sinha, AR with Ms. Astha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya

Section 143(3)

submission that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act may making addition on account of unexplained investment. The ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to represent his case before the AO as during the assessment proceedings also

E T Devassy and Sons Finance Private Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

ITA 536/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Assessing Officer who partly agreed but disagreed finally with the same and made addition in the quantum

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 42Section 68Section 69Section 69A

find that the Assessing Officer had made the addition of INR.25,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act holding the same to be unexplained investment. Whereas, on perusal of the order passed by the Learned CIT(A), we find that the Learned CIT(A) has, while concluding in paragraph

Hiralal Vijawat, Bhawanimandi vs. ACIT / DCIT Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 614/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (VC)For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, SR. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

submitted by the assessee is not found satisfactory by the Id. AO. Therefore, the unaccounted cash given to debtors of Rs.15,50,000/- and unexplained investment in construction of shop of Rs.14,00,000/- were considered as unexplained investment as per provision of section 69 of the Act. Similarly, unexplained ... reliable documentary evidences, the reply of the assessee is not acceptable. Therefore, the unaccounted cash given to debtors of Rs.15,50,000/- and unexplained investment in construction of shop of Rs.14,00,000/- are considered as unexplained investment as per provision of section 69 of the I.T. Act. Similarly, unexplained

Mishika Kamlesh Lulla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3826/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmishika Kamlesh Lulla, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. 1602, Harihar बनाम 3(2), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Building, Madhav Sankalp, Kalyan – Murbad Road, Khadakpada, Kalyan – Syndicate, Kalyan – 421 301, 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Accpl3579M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talreja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

same was P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Mishika Kamlesh Lulla disallowed and added back to its total income u/s 69 as unexplained investment. 4. In the subsequent appeal, the assessee contested the above addition made inter alia claiming that the Assessment order was passed before completing

Prakash Gunaji Veer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3517/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Shetty, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 69

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.51,63,690 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating it as unexplained investment, despite the appellant furnishing documentary evidence explaining the full source of investment towards the purchase of residential property amounting to Rs. 67,00,000 during the assessment

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 37Section 68

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Accordingly, applying the above ratio to the present case, it is held that the addition of unexplained investment u/s 69C is upheld and confirmed to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchases ie. 3% of Rs 2,73,56,857/- amounting

Mohammad Yaseer, Bardez Goa vs. ITO, Ward-2, Makrana

In the result, all the appeals bearing ITAs No

ITA 345/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250

order of the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short, the “Ld. AO”) relating to the addition of Rs.48,26,250/- made on account of unexplained investment in immovable property. The said assessment order was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) granted the assessee several opportunities

Murahari Devabathini, Secunderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 626/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.626/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Murahari Devabathini Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad (International Taxation)-2 Pan:Aqrpd7616J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ram Mohan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Schin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ram Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Schin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 148Section 194ISection 69

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.44 lakhs on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property being Flat in Bangalore vide Sale Deed dated 07/07/2015. The assessee is an individual and Non-Resident during ... Officer framed the assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act whereby made this addition of the said amount of Rs.71 lakhs as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BB of the I.T. Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned

Fedora Sea Foods Private Ltd, Nellore vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 173/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Ashok ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

above, the Assessing Officer 4 ITA.No.173/Hyd./2025 called-upon the assessee to explain as to why addition should not be made towards unexplained investment in immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,65,89,135/-. In response, the assessee once again reiterated the submissions and claimed that, purchase ... Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment in purchase of fixed assets u/sec.68 of the Act as unexplained credit, even though, the assessee has explained the source for purchase of property

Anju Bala Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 18, New Delhi

Appeal are hereby partly allowed

ITA 2887/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Acit, Anju Bala Sachdeva, S 286 Ii Floor, Central Circle-18, Greater Kailash Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aazps4886P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S. P. Gogia, Adv. Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appellant. The Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 pertain to single issue of addition of Rs.53,15,286/- for AY 2018-19 as unexplained investment u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, all these grounds are cumulatively discussed as under: 4.1 The details of jewellery found ... search operation conducted on various members of the Laxmi Remote Group are as under: 2 | P a g e 4.2 It is observed that unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A by various members of the Laxmi Remote Group as determined by the Ld. AO is as under: 4.3 Below

Shri Rafi Ahmad Sofi, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 330/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Rafi Ahmad Sofi, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 M/S Maharaja Gallery, Raj Bagh Srinagar, Maharaja Bazaar, Srinagar, Vs Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir-190001 Jammu & Kashmir -190001 Pan-Bvwps1152D Appellant Respondent

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 28Section 44ASection 69A

entries in the bank account. In absence of any reply from the assessee, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.11,10,500/- as unexplained investment liable to be taxed @60% u/s 115BBE of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs.3

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

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

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

while making addition in the hands of the appellant is not appropriate. 6.3.13 Further the provisions of Section 69 of the Act pertain to unexplained investments. For an addition under this section, the AO must conclusively establish that the appellant made an investment that remains unexplained. In this case ... Pavuna Sundari, CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment based on material seized from the premises of Shri Kirthivasan on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to produce corroborative evidence to link the assessee to the entries, without

Bharatkumar Rajashree, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1279/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

For Appellant: Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

providing as to why the amount of Rs. 1,00,35,000/- deposited in the above said bank account should not be considered as unexplained investment U/s 68 of the Act. Hence, the addition of Rs. 33,45,000/- (1/3rd of the entire amount for being joint holder

Thapar Homes Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

ITA 1054/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,38,125/-made by AO on account of unexplained investment. 8. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,29,056/-made ... decision in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). 10.3. In respect of ground of appeal no. 7 relating to unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act based on Annexure A-8 page no 72 Party O-1, the ld. counsel for assessee submitted that the said

Thapar Homes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 571/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Thapar Homes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 570/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thapar Homer Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 548/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 68Section 69C