← All Phrases

“black money act”

MiscellaneousBlack Money ActBlack Money Act28 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2232/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

deleting the addition of Rs.257, 11,16,992/-, made on protective basis without reaching the finality of the substantive addition made under Black Money Act which is under sub-judice. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred to delete addition to the tune of Rs.31 ,4201- under the head 'Income ... material found in the case of the assessee relying on the decision of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and further ld. CIT (A) has deleted Black Money Act which is under subjudice. Ld. CIT (A) observed the above facts on record and that the substantive additions have been subsequently made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

deleting the addition of Rs.257, 11,16,992/-, made on protective basis without reaching the finality of the substantive addition made under Black Money Act which is under sub-judice. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred to delete addition to the tune of Rs.31 ,4201- under the head 'Income ... material found in the case of the assessee relying on the decision of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and further ld. CIT (A) has deleted Black Money Act which is under subjudice. Ld. CIT (A) observed the above facts on record and that the substantive additions have been subsequently made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

deleting the addition of Rs.257, 11,16,992/-, made on protective basis without reaching the finality of the substantive addition made under Black Money Act which is under sub-judice. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred to delete addition to the tune of Rs.31 ,4201- under the head 'Income ... material found in the case of the assessee relying on the decision of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and further ld. CIT (A) has deleted Black Money Act which is under subjudice. Ld. CIT (A) observed the above facts on record and that the substantive additions have been subsequently made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. SMT. INDU RANI JHA, SHILLONG

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

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

case against the assessee. Also, the benefit of IDS are, admittedly, not available to assessees whose income is chargeable under the Black Money Act, 2015; Prevention of Corruption Act, and certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (as it then was). It is felt that enquiries need to be made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

case in deleting the protective addition in the hands of the assessee by referring to the order u/s 10(3) of the black money act, while not taking account that under the same proceedings Ms. Ritu Verma (assessee’s mother) has denied the ownership of foreign assets under consideration ... returns of income in case of assessee by issuing the notice u/s 10(1) of BM Act on 15.12.2018 by the AO under Black Money Act re. additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Delhi. However, final orders are yet to be passed under the BM Act

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4485/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

case in deleting the protective addition in the hands of the assessee by referring to the order u/s 10(3) of the black money act, while not taking account that under the same proceedings Ms. Ritu Verma (assessee’s mother) has denied the ownership of foreign assets under consideration ... returns of income in case of assessee by issuing the notice u/s 10(1) of BM Act on 15.12.2018 by the AO under Black Money Act re. additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Delhi. However, final orders are yet to be passed under the BM Act

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4484/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

case in deleting the protective addition in the hands of the assessee by referring to the order u/s 10(3) of the black money act, while not taking account that under the same proceedings Ms. Ritu Verma (assessee’s mother) has denied the ownership of foreign assets under consideration ... returns of income in case of assessee by issuing the notice u/s 10(1) of BM Act on 15.12.2018 by the AO under Black Money Act re. additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Delhi. However, final orders are yet to be passed under the BM Act

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

case in deleting the protective addition in the hands of the assessee by referring to the order u/s 10(3) of the black money act, while not taking account that under the same proceedings Ms. Ritu Verma (assessee’s mother) has denied the ownership of foreign assets under consideration ... returns of income in case of assessee by issuing the notice u/s 10(1) of BM Act on 15.12.2018 by the AO under Black Money Act re. additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Delhi. However, final orders are yet to be passed under the BM Act

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6352/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6350/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6348/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (TROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVA JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6347/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW ( THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. JCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6346/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Act, 2015, по separate addition could be made under the Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before

ITO-19.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEELA MADHAV APTE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3079/MUM/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Rungta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 2(11)Section 3(1)

Black Money (UFI&A) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and accordingly as per Rule. 3(1)(c)(u) of the Black Money Act, the AO has calculated the FMV of unquoted Equity Shares at 5,46,631/- Pound Sterling equivalent to Rs. 4,99,60,268/- Foreign Asset ... strongly contended that the beneficial interest in St. Ives International Limited was fully explained and do not fall within the purview of Black Money Act. It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that the beneficial interest in St. Ives International Limited was received

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-6, NEW DELHI vs. DIPANKAR PAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1014/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Central Circle-06, Vs. Shri Dipankar Pal, New Delhi-1100 92 Cj-231, Sector 11, Salt Lake City, Kolkata

Section 143(1)Section 68

time compliance window under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (in short Black Money Act) especially when the part of the circular relied upon by learned Commissioner (Appeals) clarified only a point that no declaration, under one time compliance window, in relation ... resident, needed to be filed because such assets do not fall under the definition of undisclosed foreign asset for the purposes of Black Money Act. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in not appreciating the fact that the assets reflected abruptly for the first time by the assessee

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 267/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

asked the assessee to furnish the details of foreign investments made by him and to explain as to why the provisions of Black Money Act should not be invoked in his case. In reply, the assessee submitted that the assessee had made the investments amounting to US $ 102000 through ... were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee also submitted before the Ld. AO that in his case the provisions of Black Money Act are not applicable considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY ,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 266/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

asked the assessee to furnish the details of foreign investments made by him and to explain as to why the provisions of Black Money Act should not be invoked in his case. In reply, the assessee submitted that the assessee had made the investments amounting to US $ 102000 through ... were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee also submitted before the Ld. AO that in his case the provisions of Black Money Act are not applicable considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 265/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

asked the assessee to furnish the details of foreign investments made by him and to explain as to why the provisions of Black Money Act should not be invoked in his case. In reply, the assessee submitted that the assessee had made the investments amounting to US $ 102000 through ... were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee also submitted before the Ld. AO that in his case the provisions of Black Money Act are not applicable considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2