← All Phrases

“unexplained expenditure”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69CSection 69C3,276 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained expenditure is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained expenditure

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. M.K. Brothers
163 ITR 249 · 1987 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT
84 Taxmann.com 195 · 2017 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

CIT v. La Medica
250 ITR 575 · 2001 · High Court
150
citing judgments

When purchases are shown to be non-genuine, the entire amount is to be disallowed as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, irrespective of whether the goods were procured from alternative sources.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT
58 Taxmann.com 44 · 2015 · High Court
140
citing judgments

When an assessee makes alleged bogus or hawala purchases but subsequently makes genuine sales from those purchases, the addition to income should be restricted only to the estimated profit embedded in such transactions, not the entire purchase value.

N.K. Industries Ltd. v. DCIT
72 Taxmann.com 289 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

When there is a categorical finding that purchases are bogus and from fictitious suppliers, the Assessing Officer is justified in making a 100% addition of the bogus purchase amount under Section 69C, rather than restricting the disallowance to merely the profit margin. This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the assessee's SLP.

Judgments citing unexplained expenditure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

moment assessee's income is being assessed at C% of the gross on-money, then the remaining amount 92% could take care of unexplained expenditure. It can be explained by a simple, viz. an assessee has received Rs. 100/- in cash for sale of fiat. Out c' that, element ... details were found being incurred in cash could be construed as coming out of these Rs.92/- Thus, there cannot be any separate addition of unexplained expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition." (viii) In the case of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Kishor Mohanlal Telwala

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

moment assessee's income is being assessed at C% of the gross on-money, then the remaining amount 92% could take care of unexplained expenditure. It can be explained by a simple, viz. an assessee has received Rs. 100/- in cash for sale of fiat. Out c' that, element ... details were found being incurred in cash could be construed as coming out of these Rs.92/- Thus, there cannot be any separate addition of unexplained expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition." (viii) In the case of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Kishor Mohanlal Telwala

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

moment assessee's income is being assessed at C% of the gross on-money, then the remaining amount 92% could take care of unexplained expenditure. It can be explained by a simple, viz. an assessee has received Rs. 100/- in cash for sale of fiat. Out c' that, element ... details were found being incurred in cash could be construed as coming out of these Rs.92/- Thus, there cannot be any separate addition of unexplained expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition." (viii) In the case of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Kishor Mohanlal Telwala

Harshit Indravadanbhai Talati, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1301/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1301/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Harshit Indravadan Acit Talati Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara Vs. 1, Kotyark Society, B/H. Zaver Nagar Bus Stop, Waghodia Road, Baroda, Gujarat - 390019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abipt6038Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 01/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. 4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 5,21,288/- of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act without any tangible evidence. in scrips amounting to Rs. 72,73,743/-. He explained that the assessee

Narendra Singh Bisht, Gomtinagar vs. ACIT- 1, Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 63/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.63/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Singh Bisht V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 123, Khargapur, Gomtinagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Malesemau, Uttar Pradesh- Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226010. Pan:Aljpb0987D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 12 2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 68

evident that the AO made two additions on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant and unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs.33,70,000/- and Rs.34,43,481/- respectively. It is pertinent to note that the AO made disallowance of expenditure on ad hoc basis

Shamkant Keshav Kotkar (Prop. Nandan Builders), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

source of interest paid in cash amounting to Rs.12,18,000/- is also not ascertained, the same needs to be treated as unexplained expenditure of the assessee as per the provisions of section 69C of the Act. The AO failed to ascertain whether the assessee had correctly disclosed

Rainbow Vanijya Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44A

authorities below. In the said decision, the Id. AO added the bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act which is on account of unexplained expenditure. However, in the present case, the assessee has clearly established as to how the purchases were directly funded by the buyers and confirmations to that

Vaibhav Nandkishor Patil, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 3 (4), Kalyan, Thane District

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1672/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Nandkishor Patil, Income Tax Officer 3 (4), Kalyan, C-602, Patel Heritage, Mumbai Sector, Kharghar Maharashtra -421301 Vs. Mumbai Maharastra-410210 (Pan: Amxpp0196M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Praveen Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A), Panchkula, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1073638541(1), Dated 24.02.2025, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By Ito Ward 3(2), Kalyan, Dated 23.02.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing The Entire Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Rs.15,47,224 Without Making Any Independent Inquiry By Treating The Purchases As Bogus In Nature On Mere Suspicion That The Parties Were Listed On Website Of Mvat

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

assessee has inflated the purchases by obtaining bogus/non genuine bills. He thus, treated the purchases to the extent of Rs. 15,47,224/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and made the addition thereof. 4.3. On verification of P&L account, ld. AO further observed in respect

Pravin Mohanlal Selvadia, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4329/MUM/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 68Section 69C

addition of Rs. 3,71,253/- by taking 2% of the above amount as commission paid to the entry provider and treated it as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. Assessment was thus, completed against which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Pravin Selvadia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2571/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 68Section 69C

addition of Rs. 3,71,253/- by taking 2% of the above amount as commission paid to the entry provider and treated it as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. Assessment was thus, completed against which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made

Harish Narang, Panipat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

income of the assessee for such financial year. Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, such unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income.” Section 115BBE “ 115BBE (1) Where

Shri Shah Afroze Hossain, Bhagalpur vs. Dy. CIT, Cent, Cir-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 711/PAT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.711/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain.….…………………....…………………....Appellant 12, Shahganjhi, Habibpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812006. [Pan: Aapph1112D] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Patna-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹75,56,770, Comprising The Income From Business Of ₹6,54,569, Long- Term Capital Gains: ₹49,60,293 & Income From Other Sources Of ₹19,35,912. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out On 29.12.2022 At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee Pursuant To A Warrant Of Authorisation Issued By The Director Of Investigation, Patna. During The Course Of The Search

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Unexplained money introduced in business of ₹26,50,000, Addition under section 50C of the Act of ₹76,93,500 and unexplained expenditure based on seized material of ₹10,85,000. Thus, total additions of ₹1,76,51,420 were made. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred ... reference to the District Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) of the Act and issue relating to addition of ₹10,85,000 towards unexplained expenditure sustained. 4. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal raises the following substantive issues: I.T.A. No.711/PAT/2024 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1883/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42,30,000/-, Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt ... purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad d. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest paid to Shri B.S. Prasad e. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

account of Bogus purchases of Rs. 3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs. 42,30,000/-, Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous ... purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad d. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest paid to Shri B.S. Prasad e. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1881/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42,30,000/-, Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt ... purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad d. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest paid to Shri B.S. Prasad e. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol

ACIT, Chennai vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

account of Bogus purchases of Rs. 3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs. 42,30,000/-, Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous ... purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad d. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest paid to Shri B.S. Prasad e. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol

ACIT, Nungambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42,30,000/-, Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt ... purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad d. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest paid to Shri B.S. Prasad e. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol

ACIT, Nunagambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42,30,000/-, Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt ... purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received from Shri B.S. Prasad d. Unexplained expenditure under section 69C: Rs.42,30,000/- being interest paid to Shri B.S. Prasad e. Addition on account of sale proceeds of land at Palakol

Meera Prakash Tewani, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 5751/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymeera Prakash Tewani Dcit, C-41-43 12, David Way, Bishopton Bkc, Gilban Area Startford Upon Avon, Cv370Ug, Vs. Bandra East United Kingdom Mumbai-400 051. Uk-999 999 Pan : Abjpt5911D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Rupal Shrimal Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 Date Of : 30/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal ShrimalFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K
Section 144Section 147Section 69C

under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the I.T. Act, has made the addition of Rs. 22,02,351/- being unexplained expenditure qua purchase of foreign currency under section 69C of the Act. 2 Meera Prakash Tewani 3. Thus, the assessee being aggrieved with the said addition

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

commission at 2 percent of the alleged fictitious profit and made an addition of Rs.2,66,633/- under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 9. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... position in law, the learned CITA erred in upholding the action of learned AO in treating an amount of Rs.2,66,633 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The appellant prays that the addition, being made on mere conjectures and surmises, be deleted in totality