Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai493 Delhi317 Jaipur131 Chennai120 Bangalore118 Ahmedabad106 Kolkata76 Hyderabad70 Pune62 Chandigarh54 Indore43 Nagpur27 Raipur27 Cochin26 Visakhapatnam24 Surat24 Guwahati20 Lucknow16 Rajkot11 Cuttack11 Amritsar10 Jodhpur9 Agra9 Varanasi7 Allahabad6 Ranchi5 Telangana5 SC3 Karnataka3 Jabalpur3 Patna3 Dehradun2

Key Topics

Addition to Income9 Section 69A8 Section 115B8 Section 143(3)6 Section 696 Section 250(6)5 Section 1474 Section 1444 Section 80I4 Survey u/s 133A

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

unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs.5,56,880/-out of depreciation allowance even though the assessee could not prove the genuineness

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 356/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed

4

Business Income4

ITAT Amritsar

13 Sept 2023

AY 2006-07

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

Section 147Section 148Section 250

unexplainable source. In appeal, the ITAT held that CIT(A) could not give direction to reopen case for another year. On revenue's appeal, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of ITAT. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Eskay Knit (India) Ltd vs. DCIE (2014) 110 DTR 126 (Bom), under identical facts, comprehensively held as under

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

investment in building and excess stock found, the same cannot be assessed as business income, rather it is squarely covered under the provisions of section 69/69A as unexplained income/investment not eligible for any deduction and to be charged to tax as per section 115BBE of the Act.” 23. He relied upon the following decisions for those purposes: - a) FAMINA KNIT

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 227/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ld. C. A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. D. R.)

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

invested Rs.68,50,000/ plus registration charges of Rs. 4,11,000/- (Rs. 72,61,000/-) in purchase of property and not explained the source thereof; the same is required to be charged to tax in the assessment year 2010-11 under the relevant provisions of Income tax. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment

M/S SHARP CHUKS AND MACHINES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms as above

ITA 169/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 115BSection 153(3)Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and tax thereon charged as per section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. DCIT in ITA No. 65/Asr/2023 order dated 14.06.2023 where it was held vide para

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

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

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.)

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

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 542/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(3)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

depreciation will be allowed. In the present case, to the extent of the expenditure incurred for construction of the building, out of unexplained source is concerned, it is to be construed as income earned from the business and it will take character of the business income. The case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is distinguishable

SHRI TEJPAL SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 266/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 266/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

depreciation will be allowed. In the present case, to the extent of the expenditure I.T.A. No. 266/Asr/2023 6 Assessment Year: 2018-19 incurred for construction of the building, out of unexplained source is concerned, it is to be construed as income earned from the business and it will take character of the business income. The case law relied upon

SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SINGH,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground of appeal No

ITA 376/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C. A

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

unexplained increase in capital account, made by the AO vide order u/s 144 of the Act for AY 2014-15 is confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.” 7. Regarding the second issue of disallowance of the claim of bank interest the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is as follows: “7.3 In this ground of appeal