← All Phrases

“unexplained money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69ASection 69A5,888 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained money is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained money

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

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.

Judgments citing unexplained money

Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 398/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs1,40,87,980/- treating the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the assessee rejecting the contention of the appellant that the said cash deposits were made out of business receipts of the partnership firm, M/s. Sitaram ... Ground of appeal Nos. 1-14 challenges the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. It is undisputed fact that the appellant offered explanation in support of the source of said cash deposits by stating that

Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 397/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned lower authorities made addition on cash deposits in the bank account treating as unexplained money of the appellant, rejecting the submissions of the appellant in support of the source of cash deposits without assigning any reason. It is submitted that ... Thrikkur Subbaraman is whether the learned lower authorities were justified in making addition of Rs. 4,09,08,382/- and confirming the same as unexplained money of the assessee. Out of this a sum of Rs. 1,23,92,033/- represents the maturity proceeds of FD made in the earlier

Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen, Oyoor vs. ITO Ward 3, Kollam

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

ITA 363/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen .......... Appellant Melathil Veedu, Payyacode, Oyoor, Kollam [Pan: Aefpn3764B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3, Kollam 691510.......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 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 31.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed By The Appellant Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Had Come To Know That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282(1)

circumstances, the AO proceeded with making best judgement assessment u/s. 144 of the Act treating the cash deposit of Rs. 65,19,994/- as unexplained money of the appellant and made additions on account of rental income of Rs. 1,60,202/-, income from other sources

Sainaba, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 192/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sainaba .......... Appellant 152, Sainaba Manziil, Azhiyoor, Vadakara Kozhikode 673309 [Pan: Dgfps0956H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar C., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

proceeded with making assessment. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits made in the bank account of Rs. 18,60,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant and also assessed the capital gains of Rs. 56,33,929/- on sale of property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal

Trikkalangode Vanitha Cooperative Society Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tirur

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

ITA 958/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thrikkalangode Vanitha Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Thrikkalangode, Malapuram 676123 [Pan: Aafat1812K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1., Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, Ca Respondent 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 30.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. No Regular

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

made addition of cash deposit of Rs. 1,24,56,550/- made in the account maintained with Manjari Co-operative Urban bank Ltd. as unexplained money of the appellant. Also made addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 26,03,873/- and interest income

Gomathy Jalaja, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 780/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

r.w.s. 153C of the Act at a total income of Rs. 16,50,000/- treating the cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partially granted relief by restricting ... r.w.s. 254 of the Act reiterating the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- treating the cash deposit made on 10.10.2003 as unexplained money of the assessee rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said deposits were made out of the amount given by one Smt. Kalpana out of land

Gomathy Jalaja, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thituvananthapuram

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

ITA 779/COCH/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

r.w.s. 153C of the Act at a total income of Rs. 16,50,000/- treating the cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partially granted relief by restricting ... r.w.s. 254 of the Act reiterating the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- treating the cash deposit made on 10.10.2003 as unexplained money of the assessee rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said deposits were made out of the amount given by one Smt. Kalpana out of land

Gomathy Jalaja, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 778/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

r.w.s. 153C of the Act at a total income of Rs. 16,50,000/- treating the cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partially granted relief by restricting ... r.w.s. 254 of the Act reiterating the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- treating the cash deposit made on 10.10.2003 as unexplained money of the assessee rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said deposits were made out of the amount given by one Smt. Kalpana out of land

Calicut Chamber of Commerece and Industry, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

appellant failed to produce supporting evidence relating to the identity of contributors or source of funds. The ĄO, treating the entire cash deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act an addition of Rs.1,80,23,459/- and applied tax under Section 115BBE of the Act vide assessment

Devendra Pratap Singh, Kumarganj Faizabad vs. ITO-1, Faizabad-New, Faizabad

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

ITA 176/LKW/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Purnodaya Kumar Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Rs.1,07,60,000/-,the ld. AO added back the amount of cash deposited to his income as income from undisclosed sources / unexplained money under section 69A. Penalty proceedings were also initiated as a consequence of this assessment. 2 A/w S.A. No.1/LKW/2025 Devendra Pratap Singh A.Y. 2017-18 3. Aggrieved ... liability was violative of the Act, because the income which had already been declared in the return, could not be deemed to be unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee also filed a statement of facts in which a request was made to consider certain documents

Vivek Dixit, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC-2, Kanpur

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

ITA 258/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: None
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

statements of the lenders and it was made clear that failing to furnish - the same the so called unsecured loans will be treated as unexplained money and will be added to his income u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee vide reply dated 10-042021 has furnished the copies ... bank statements of the lenders and it was made Clear that failing to furnish the same the so called unsecured loans will be treated.as unexplained money and will be added to his income u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee vide reply dated 10-04-2021 has furnished the copies

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

added the same also to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money of the assessee. 2.3 The AO further noticed that the assessee had failed to deposit the sum of Rs.1,12,102/- deducted from the salary

Bipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 420 C/O Ankita Tiles, Ward-4(2)(1), Opp. Bindal Oil Mil,Gota Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382481. [Pan :Ajgpd0402 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Rs.5,76,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account Bipinkumar M Detroja Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– of unexplained money. The observation made by the Assessing Officer in this regard is as follows:- “10. The assessee has not furnished cogent, logical and justifiable explanation

Navbharat Holidays, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1) (Previous Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1753/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

concluded that the cash deposits 3 represented unexplained income, and brought to tax the entire amount of Rs.25,54,242/- as unexplained money under section 69A, while initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) separately. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee preferred

Padmavathi Morthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 704/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sai KumarFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

making additions on account of capital gain at Rs.1,64,56,000/- and addition on account of cash deposit in Bank accounts as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.23,28,600/-, as against the returned income of the assessee at Rs.7,35,780/- vide order dated

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Parth Ajit Pawar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3929/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash totalling Rs.1,69,10,100, and proceeded to treat the same as unexplained money under Section 69A. 8. Consequently, an addition of Rs.1,69,10,100 was made to the assessee's income under Section ... Assessing Officer inferred that the assessee had given cash totalling Rs.1,69,10,100/- and proceeded to invoke Section 69A to treat it as unexplained money. 12. The assessee, in his appeal before the learned CIT(A), raised a threefold challenge firstly, that the statement of Shri Sagar Shah

Visagar Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3386/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Darshana BhaiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

r.w.s. 144B of the Act, thereby determining total income at Rs. 65,14,594/-, after making addition of Rs. 65,14,594/- as unexplained money u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE towards transaction in the scrip PMC Fincorp Ltd. alleged to be a penny stock. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal

Urvi Hitalkumar Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2406/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Urvi Hitalkumar Patel V/S. Income Tax Officer, B 1101, Shreenath Tower, बिाम Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai Shankar Lane, Kandivali Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, West 400067 Bkc, Bandra East 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Cevpp8858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Manish Sheth राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69

complete the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 21.02.2024 at an income of Rs. 37,26,000/- being unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act which was utilised in the purchase of the immovable property. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

Jay Rajesh Kedia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6565/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Jay Rajesh Kedia, Income Tax Officer, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No.18, 6Th Road, Ward- 34(2)(1), Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400056 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Anupk 3683L Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

After making additions of an amount of Rs.75,04,727/-. Further, the AO treated the capital gain declared by the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, inter alia, challenging the validity

Narshi Gopalji Mange, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2064/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

Assessing officer is in relation to disallowance of interest capitalized into the cost of property and addition under section 69A alleging deposit of unexplained money. 3. The present appeal is delayed by 365 days. 4. Order in this case was passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) on 19/02/2023