BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

21 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai430Delhi315Jaipur114Ahmedabad110Chennai105Bangalore87Kolkata80Hyderabad62Chandigarh51Indore39Pune39Visakhapatnam31Cochin28Guwahati28Raipur27Nagpur23Amritsar21Lucknow20Rajkot18Surat18Agra11Cuttack11Jodhpur9Allahabad7Varanasi6Patna5SC4Ranchi3Panaji3Karnataka3Jabalpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 153A36Addition to Income16Deduction15Section 250(6)13Section 153B12Section 8012Section 40A(3)12House Property12Natural Justice12

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

cash payment. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law and fact in deleting the additions of Rs. 33,00,000/- made on account of unexplained credits despite the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings when new facts came in light, the assessee tried to own-up such concerns being operated

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. SUDERSHAN KUMAR SHARMA, JAMMU

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

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Section 143(3)7
Section 80I4
Section 2744
ITA 194/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 194/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Sr. D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Parveen Jain (Adv.)
Section 143(3)

unexplained credit, it is open to the Income-Tax Officer to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and no further burden lies on him to show that the income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the cash credit represents income, it is from the source which has already

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation at Rs.5,52,861. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 29/1/2015 at an income of Rs.3,25,343, making three separate adjustments/additions aggregating to Rs.3,22,718, as under: 2 ITA Nos. 131/Asr/2018 (AY 2012-13) Malwa Motors v. ITO Particular Amount (Rs.) Remark (a) Credits in respected of commission & 1,59,747 Tax deducted at source labor

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

unexplained income. 24.10.2016 Letter received from Haldiram Mfg Co Pvt Ltd Gurgaon as per which Nil balance shown in the assesee’s account opening and closing balance 10.11.2016 Counsel appeared. Furnished the written submissions to show cause notice and furnished copy of Cash A/c. Asked to explain the discrepancies with books of accounts. Explanation with narration cash withdrawn not explained

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 176/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

unexplained credit. Very clearly, the assessee has no explanation for this sum, which represents neither an opening balance nor a provision was during the year. The confirmation of the addition to this extent is accordingly confirmed. We may though add that our said adjudication may not be in any manner construed as being in agreement with the deletion of Rs.66.10

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

unexplained credit. Very clearly, the assessee has no explanation for this sum, which represents neither an opening balance nor a provision was during the year. The confirmation of the addition to this extent is accordingly confirmed. We may though add that our said adjudication may not be in any manner construed as being in agreement with the deletion of Rs.66.10

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 175/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

unexplained credit. Very clearly, the assessee has no explanation for this sum, which represents neither an opening balance nor a provision was during the year. The confirmation of the addition to this extent is accordingly confirmed. We may though add that our said adjudication may not be in any manner construed as being in agreement with the deletion of Rs.66.10

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 101/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

unexplained credit. Very clearly, the assessee has no explanation for this sum, which represents neither an opening balance nor a provision was during the year. The confirmation of the addition to this extent is accordingly confirmed. We may though add that our said adjudication may not be in any manner construed as being in agreement with the deletion of Rs.66.10

SHRI RAJAN BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 139/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 83/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI RAJAN BATRA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 113/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 140/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 141/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 143/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHR RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 81/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 85/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 138/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI RAJAN BATRA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 111/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 80

credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-C of Rs.90