“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

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1602/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

case was centralized and finally the assessment was completed. The Ld. AO made addition total amount of Rs.64,75,370/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved ... clear that cash is received in sale of flats In view of the above, Rs. 1,35,00,000/- is treated as unexplained money during the AY 2018-19 and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi vs. Vishap Bajaj, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6338/DEL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vishap Bajaj, Room No. 1804, 18Th Floor, Al-113, Shalimar Bagh, Civic Centre, Delhi – 110 088 New Delhi (Pan: Aetps4340E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. A.K. Arora, Sr. Dr. Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Arora, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 144Section 69A

Dish Antenna cannot be used by individual. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained money by ignoring the fact that the assessee was given ample opportunities to justify the claim, but the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details

Lalit Kumar, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

awareness, uneducated status, and absence of proper guidance. 2. That the learned authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A without granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain the sources of such deposits, or by ignoring the circumstances and available facts

Ila Jigneshkumar Vakharia, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 599/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 599/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Ila Jignesh Kumar Vakharia, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Bagasra Road, At Derdi Kumbhaji, 1(2)(1), Derdi – Gondal - 364465 New Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqfpv0899R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 153

Amounting to Rs. 39,31,375/- and commission of Rs. 78,628/-. Was considered to be in accommodation entry an treated as an unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. and commission earned to be taken @ 2% consider has unexplained expenses u/s. 69C of the Act. in penny script

Income Tax Officer, Bhagalpur vs. Sapna, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur

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

ITA 492/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250

facts available on record. Therefore, for want of explanation from the assessee regarding the nature and source of cash deposit were treated as unexplained money and assessed the income from other sources. It was further observed that the assessee has received interest of Rs. 22,737/- as interest income other ... than securities. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 22,737/- was being considered as unexplained money deposit in savings bank account added into the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings

Patliputra Distributors Private Limited, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

account of cash deposit made by the assessee during the demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 being treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making addition ... unexplained money with regard to cash deposits of Rs. 2,10,38,900/- made out of normal course of business and levying tax u/s 115BBE of the Act" and confirmation by the CIT (A), NFAC are wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong, illegal and at any rate are excessive. 7. For that

Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs. Sri Guru Hargobind Educational Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/CHANDI/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Gupta, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 1,00,28,281/- made by the AO being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 as the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment ... burden of proof, the AO concluded the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, determining that cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,28,281/- constituted unexplained money taxable under Section 69A, and the interest income of Rs. 61,606/- was liable to be assessed as “Income from Other Sources,” thereby computing

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1054/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

which didn’t materialize, and at the same time he is of the opinion that the on-money was liable to be treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. This stand is found to be self-contradictory and fallacious. In the course of search, no evidence ... money, if any, received in cash was part of sale consideration and exigible to “Capital Gain Tax” and could not have been considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The provision of section 69A of Act was not at all applicable in the facts of the present case

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1053/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1052/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Jaideep Halwasiya, India vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2217/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Mohit Mrinal, DR

Section 153CSection 153C(3)

account the contentions and submissions of the assessee vide order dated 30.03.2023, passed u/s 153C of the Act, wherein the addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act was made to the tune of %10,63,000/- beside making other additions of ?7,90,955/- in respect

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cnetral Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1253/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Dcit, Circle 4(3), Kolkata P-162, Cit Road, Scheme-Viim, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054, Vs. 700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adrpg5357Q Co No. 74/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 1253/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2017-18) Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Dcit, Circle 4(3), Kolkata P-162, Cit Road, Scheme-Viim, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054, Vs. 700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adrpg5357Q Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 69A

assessee and added the entire amount pertaining to this year amounting to ₹1,48,86,218/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money in the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act dated 31.03.2022. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee ... that these cash receipts were the income of the assessee. Ignoring that, the AO unjustly made huge addition of Rs.1,48,86,218/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The AO could not prove that these cash receipts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Tirupur

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

value of Rs.28,38,00,000/-. Therefore, the undersigned has considered that the addition of Rs.13,75,64,540/- made by the AO as unexplained money in the hands of the Appellant is unsustainable on merits of the case. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon this issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gnanaguru Lavanya, Tirupur

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Life Line Auto Finance, Karur

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10 Crores made on account unexplained Money u/s.69A of the Act by observing that loose sheets found during the course of search showing the unaccounted cash deposits made by the partners ... facts and circumstances, the AO proceeded to make a protective addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee firm as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14. 12. Accordingly, after making the aforesaid protective addition, the AO completed the assessment by passing

Jai Bhavani Reti Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd, Virar vs. Thane 4(1), Ashar It Park Thane

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

ITA 7310/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jai Bhavani Reti Utpadak Sahakari Ito,Ward-4(1), Thane Sanstha Ltd. Vs Ashar It Park, Thane, At Naringi Post Virar, Vasai-Virar, Maharashtra – 400602. Maharashtra – 401201. [Pan No. Aaatj6207E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 69ASection 80P

deduction. 5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue, on the addition of section 69A of unexplained money submits that assessee failed to furnish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Though, there is no reference in the assessment order about issuance

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5805/MUM/2025[A.Y. 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankardiamond Tradecom V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Private Limited बनाम 12(2)(1), Room No. 147B, Shop No.1, Shiv Ganga Chs Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Ltd., Ram Kuwar Thakur Mumbai – 400020, Road, Dahisar (East), Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 068, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd8131A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

confirming the addition of Rs. 14,27,22,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act., 1961 made by the Ld. AO being unexplained money as investment in equity shares, units of Mutual Fund and Commodity Exchange. ADDITION U/S 69 P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2015-16 Diamond Tradecom Private

Krn Exclusive, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(6), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1187/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 1187/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Krn Exclusive, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac A-85, Sf Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Income Tax Officer, Saraswati Vihar, Ward-43(6), Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaofk6712H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072033648(1) Dated 09.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 69A

lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating it’s cash deposits of 2 KRN Exclusive Rs.1,37,79,830/- during demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee/firm has already been held

Moral Alloys Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 17(3), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 871/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 871/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 201/1, Ground Floor, Khasra No. Ward-17(3), 1595/634, Vill. Chandra Wali, New Delhi Shahdara Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-110032 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm8421J Assessee By : Sh. Deepanshu Singla, Adv. & Sh. Ankit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056610146(1) Dated 27.09.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Deepanshu Singla, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

credit entries in M/s Axis Bank amounting to Rs.1,82,90,000/- 2 Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.8,86,03,551/-, respectively as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 16.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Both the parties vehemently

Savita Hemant Rathod, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 783/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.783/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Savita Heman Rathod The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ K – 2001 New T.T. Market Ward-2(3), V/S. Ring Road Surat – 395 002 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aawpr 6274 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shaunak R. Zaveri, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak R. Zaveri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

accepting Savita Hemant Rathod vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of loan treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds