Search: disallowance | 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.

84 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,550 Delhi1,755 Kolkata907 Chennai751 Ahmedabad540 Jaipur474 Bangalore397 Hyderabad378 Indore247 Surat242 Pune240 Chandigarh190 Rajkot161 Visakhapatnam158 Cochin149 Raipur117 Nagpur106 Cuttack96 Amritsar84 Lucknow80 Guwahati63 Agra61 Allahabad53 Panaji45 Jodhpur44 Calcutta43 Ranchi17 Dehradun15 Patna15 Jabalpur10 Karnataka9 Varanasi9 Telangana6 SC5 Orissa2 Kerala1 Rajasthan1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 6879 Section 153A77 Addition to Income77 Section 143(3)60 Natural Justice31 Disallowance28 Section 250(6)27 Section 14826 Section 26325 Section 147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 10/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

disallowance of Rs. 11,82,945/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of claim of payment of interest on the unexplained cash credits

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 579/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

24

Section 271(1)(c)

Section 68

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act: Rs. 2,86,96,452/-, the CIT(A) upheld the same. As regards the penalty imposed by the A.O as regards the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

ITA 547/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act: Rs. 2,86,96,452/-, the CIT(A) upheld the same. As regards the penalty imposed by the A.O as regards the disallowance

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 305/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act: Rs. 2,86,96,452/-, the CIT(A) upheld the same. As regards the penalty imposed by the A.O as regards the disallowance

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

ITA 5/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act: Rs. 2,86,96,452/-, the CIT(A) upheld the same. As regards the penalty imposed by the A.O as regards the disallowance

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

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - As per business model adopted by assessee, it was in continuous need for payment of cash at various points of time and hence, it had to withdraw cash in order to satisfy its business requirements - Assessee had furnished entire details of cash received from customers containing name and address of customers, PAN, and invoice

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

ITA 255/ASR/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. Inderjit Paul (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 184(2)Section 420Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 (at Rs.23,56,500) and disallowance of interest thereon (Rs.1 lac), i.e., at a total

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,MANSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 238/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance of Rs. 505000/- made by the AO u/s 40A(3), addition of Rs. 650000/- made u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained cash credits

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

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

ITA 641/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv

Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit after rejection of books of accounts invoking provisions of section 145(3). 19. Before concluding the Ld. AR referred to the bank statement of HDFC bank and submitted that in the instant case the total cash deposited in bank during the FY is only Rs. 71.12 lakhs , ( including the meagre amount of Rs.18.07 lakhs during demo period

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid

ITA 377/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Sh Shakil Ahmad, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

disallowances:- Sr.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Addition on account of 18,16,500 unexplained cash credits in the bank

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

unexplained cash credit. In the present case, the appellant has not come forward to substantiate the claim with the help of independent evidence that the sales transactions were genuine. Merely because the books of accounts were showing transactions of sale which on the ground were found to be bogus for the reasons mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

disallowed as an expenditure for the year in which it is incurred, contracting a ‘liability’ in its respect and, even otherwise, the ‘benefit’ in its respect arising in that year itself, even as explained in Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra). In fact, in the facts of the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has, in view of the assessee having

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- II, BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE JAGTAR SINGH PRABHDAYAL , FAZILKA

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 408/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

cash and stock found during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 20.02.2014 and subsequently in the course of scrutiny proceedings. Another addition of Rs.1,55,11,938/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of account of the Jagtar Singh

SHRI JAGTAR SINGH PRABHDAYAL,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 398/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

cash and stock found during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 20.02.2014 and subsequently in the course of scrutiny proceedings. Another addition of Rs.1,55,11,938/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of account of the Jagtar Singh

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), SRINAGAR vs. M/S M M I ENTERPRISES, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 392/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R.S.Syal & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.392(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)For Respondent: None

disallowances of Rs.57,67,367/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, AO itself is not clear

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

ITA 11/ASR/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR

disallowance as the persons who had given the affidavits had not been cross- examined before rejecting the affidavits. Also the fact that the credits were in the bank account which was not a part of the books of accounts and thus no addition ii] s 68 was called for was also not appreciated. The credits stood confirmed by the persons

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

credited in the books of account. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amount of Rs.3 lac related introduction of capital in partnership firm I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 6 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 by partner and Rs.18,04,903/- related to the bogus sundry creditors. Related to bogus purchased only the addition