← 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

Vandana Narendra Lodha, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 419/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It A No: 419/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: None (adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69

Naya Raipur 3. The impugned assessment u/s 153A was completed on 04.11.2016, making an addition of Rs. 1,22,65,512/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act by observing that the assessee was unable to produce evidence, neither during the search operations nor during the assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Chhatisgarh Distilleries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

first three months i.e., Jan 2018 to March 2018 amounting to Rs.2.10 crore was made in the relevant AY, treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. It is further brought to our knowledge by the Ld. AR that no addition for remaining 17 instalments of Rs.70

Desh Bhushan Singhal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 862/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Desh Bhushan Singhal, Vs. Income Tax Officer G-12, Rittz Square, Nr. Indoor Ward-1(3)(1), Stadium, Ghod Dod Road, Surat - Surat 395 007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acips3627H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 56

case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.81,40,800/- in the name of unexplained investment for purchase of flat, whereas it was clearly proved that the appellant had only 50% share in the flat so purchased and the said ... ascertained by the Stamp Duty Authority at Rs.86,31,642/-. The assessee had not explained the source of investment, which was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. The AO also added the difference in purchase value of property as per stamp duty value, i.e., Rs.4

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Ms. Janani Exports, Mumbai

ITA 604/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.604/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year:2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.9, 10 & 19/Srt/2024 (Ays:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.20 To 22/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.35 To 38/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2016-17 To 2019-20) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent)

carrying out the unaccounted purchases. The addition was made only on the basis of assumption by the AO that the assessee would have incurred unexplained investment in making the unexplained purchases. For this, he has taken the ratio of opening stock to the total purchases in the regular books

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

159/Hyd./2025 4. The addition of Rs.16,47,900/- made by the AD and upheld by the hon'ble DRP under section 69 as unexplained investment is illegal and bad in law since the assesse is a non-resident and has made this expenditure out of her income earned ... addition of Rs.16,47,900/-made by the AD and upheld by the hon'ble DRP under section 69 as unexplained investment is illegal and bad in law as it is for the expenditure incurred on the stamp duty and it cannot be construed as "investment". 6. The appellant

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

159/Hyd./2025 4. The addition of Rs.16,47,900/- made by the AD and upheld by the hon'ble DRP under section 69 as unexplained investment is illegal and bad in law since the assesse is a non-resident and has made this expenditure out of her income earned ... addition of Rs.16,47,900/-made by the AD and upheld by the hon'ble DRP under section 69 as unexplained investment is illegal and bad in law as it is for the expenditure incurred on the stamp duty and it cannot be construed as "investment". 6. The appellant

Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, W-1 & Tps, Guruvayoor, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid

ITA 378/COCH/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar .......... Appellant Puliyambra House, Mullassery Post, Thrissur, Kerala [Pan: Aespu 9516 R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K K, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

total income of Rs. 23,35,043/-. While doing so, the AO made the addition of Rs.20,95,043/- as unexplained investment in the residential house, based on the valuation report submitted by the DVO on the cost of construction. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

Thekkinian Paulose Varkey, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 960/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey .......... Appellant Thekkinian (H), Koratty South P.O., Thrissur 68030 [Pan: Aedpv4959E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Executing Construction Contracts Under The Name & Style Of T.P. Constructions. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 77,93,730/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

While doing so, the AO brought to tax the addition to capital of Rs. 1,13,38,759/- as unexplained investment, as the appellant had failed to give satisfactory explanation in support of source of capital investment. Similarly, the AO also made addition on loss on sale ... appeal A to C challenges the findings of the CIT(A) confirming the addition made u/s. 68 treating the addition to capital as unexplained investment. On a mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the AO made addition of addition to capital as unexplained investment

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

estimated rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee, any separate addition is required to be made on any other item like unexplained investment of undisclosed income or cash credits, keeping in view the judgement of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwel Constructions

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

estimated rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee, any separate addition is required to be made on any other item like unexplained investment of undisclosed income or cash credits, keeping in view the judgement of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwel Constructions

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

estimated rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee, any separate addition is required to be made on any other item like unexplained investment of undisclosed income or cash credits, keeping in view the judgement of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwel Constructions

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

estimated rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee, any separate addition is required to be made on any other item like unexplained investment of undisclosed income or cash credits, keeping in view the judgement of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwel Constructions

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

estimated rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee, any separate addition is required to be made on any other item like unexplained investment of undisclosed income or cash credits, keeping in view the judgement of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwel Constructions

Ajay Kumar Rampuria, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

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

ITA 612/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.A
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of Act by Assessment unit, Income Tax Department. 2. Sole grievance of the assessee is against the addition for unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act at Rs.7,57,911/- 2 M/s. Ajay Kumar Rampuria 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur. vs. M/S. Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery Private Limited, Lucknow

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

accordingly, made an addition of Rs.6,92,900/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 28 2.2 Further, during the course of survey, statement on oath of Dr. Sumit Malhotra had been recorded

Tapan Kumar Shaw, Naihati vs. ITO, Ward 51(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1171/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Tapan Kr. Shaw………….………..……..…………………....Appellant 331, R.B. C Road, Gorifa, Naihati, W.B 743166 [Pan: Bvups8924F] Vs. Ito, Ward-51(3), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, Dated 08.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015–16 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,64,330. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Primarily Due To High Cash In Hand Shown In The Balance Sheet As Compared To The Preceding Year & Late Filing Of Return After 07.11.2016. The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Business. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued. The Authorized Representative Appeared & Submitted Various Documents During Assessment Proceedings. During The Course Of Assessment, It Was

Section 143(3)Section 69

reflected in the balance sheet. Out of this, a sum of ₹14,12,101 remained unexplained. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investment and added it to the assessee’s total income under Section 69. 3. Aggrieved by the order of assessing officer assessee filed appeal before ... Considering the explanation offered and the documentary evidence placed on record, we are of the view that the addition of ₹14,12,101 as unexplained investment is not justified. The same deserves to be deleted. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) Ram Battery India Pvt Ltd :: 5 :: 6. The ld. CIT(A), upon hearing the assessee on the issue of Unexplained Investment of Rs.1,53,47,650/- has passed following order as under: On perusal of the above statement recorded from Shri. L.R.Mahesh on 05.03.2020, firstly ... reference to any corroborative evidence, found during the course of survey, which leads to the conclusion that the appellant has made any unexplained investments in the Hotel, let alone any investment made during the year under consideration. Further, it is also noticed that there is no basis

Channarayapatna Nanjappa Chandregowda, Hassan vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 2371/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, the AO held that the total investment made by the assessee on the immovable property as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee had not appeared

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 1, Bengaluru vs. Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 2363/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

brief facts of the case show that the Id. AO made an addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. During the course of search proceeding seized material was found marked as Annexure A/GTP/BD1-04 which contains the details of cash payment made ... being Rs.2,10,67,130 paid to Mr. Sajjad Khan and Rs.86,80,000 to Mr. Fahd Khan as income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. This addition was challenged before the Id. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

brief facts of the case show that the ld. AO made an addition of Rs.2,97,47,130 as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. During the course of search proceeding seized material was found marked as Annexure A/GTP/BD1-04 which contains the details of cash payment made ... being Rs.2,10,67,130 paid to Mr. Sajjad Khan and Rs.86,80,000 to Mr. Fahd Khan as income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para