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.

26 results for “transfer pricing”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai782Delhi752Jaipur214Chennai206Kolkata171Hyderabad163Bangalore158Ahmedabad113Indore105Chandigarh98Cochin81Rajkot63Surat51Nagpur45Calcutta36Pune34Agra26Amritsar26Cuttack25Guwahati23Visakhapatnam16Jodhpur16Raipur13Lucknow12Patna5Karnataka4Jabalpur3Allahabad3SC2Telangana2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income23Section 143(3)19Section 6916Section 13215Section 14712Section 25010Section 14810Section 26310Search & Seizure

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

transferred to the accounts of Sh Baldev Singh and Sh Malook Singh even if by technical default in the bank, the source of cash deposit of Rs 153.98,000/-in the bank accounts had remained unexplained by the appellant and therefore the addition of Rs 153,98,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act was justified and upheld

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 153A8
Unexplained Money4
Survey u/s 133A4
ITA 133/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

price whichever is lower at the acquisition in the past. 4. That Ld. AO has not appreciated the fact that surrender was agreed in the hands of four persons to avoid litigation, buy peace and to make amicable settlement with the department. 5. That the Ld. AO erred under law and facts in making addition

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: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 147Section 148Section 250

price of Rs.2,30,00,000/-, has wrongly been assessed and upheld in this case. I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 6. That the Id.CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring assessee's submissions that if at all the reopening was valid, the Id ITO could not have given a clean chit to other group of partners headed

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 53/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

investment in property. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. ITA No. 89/Asr/2020 for AY 2016-17 5. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. AO. 6. During hearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 87/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

investment in property. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. ITA No. 89/Asr/2020 for AY 2016-17 5. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. AO. 6. During hearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 89/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

investment in property. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. ITA No. 89/Asr/2020 for AY 2016-17 5. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. AO. 6. During hearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 88/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

investment in property. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. ITA No. 89/Asr/2020 for AY 2016-17 5. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. AO. 6. During hearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 90/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

investment in property. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. ITA No. 89/Asr/2020 for AY 2016-17 5. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. AO. 6. During hearing

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 51/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

investment in property. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. ITA No. 89/Asr/2020 for AY 2016-17 5. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. AO. 6. During hearing

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 671/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep
Section 69

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 673/ASR/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep
Section 69

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 672/ASR/2014[201-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023

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

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep
Section 69

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

price of the property. This fact of receipt of on-money under the agreement to sell by the appellant stands amply proved by the quantum of cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the appellant and family members. Hence, I do not find force in the contentions of the appellant and the judicial decisions relied upon are found

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

price of the property. This fact of receipt of on-money under the agreement to sell by the appellant stands amply proved by the quantum of cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the appellant and family members. Hence, I do not find force in the contentions of the appellant and the judicial decisions relied upon are found

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU vs. SHRI RAM PAL GUPTA, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 476/ASR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

investment. 1(b).Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that cost of Jewellery/Bullion mentioned is Schedule AL of his returns of income for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was not explained by the assessee vis a vis the value of Gold

SHRI RAM PAL GUPTA ,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 449/ASR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

investment. 1(b).Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that cost of Jewellery/Bullion mentioned is Schedule AL of his returns of income for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was not explained by the assessee vis a vis the value of Gold

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)

transferred to the following concerns during the year itself on various dates- S.S. Enterprises, JalalabadRs.3,62,93,300/- Narinder Joson& Co., JalalabadRs.6,11,56,000/- Amrinder& Sons, Jalalabad Rs. 2,00,00,000/- Gurkirat Enterprises, Jalalabad Rs. 2,00,00,000/- Nawab Trading Rs. 1,07,06,700/- Josan Food Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 2,00,00,000/-” The ld. Counsel

RAVINDER SINGH BRAR,FARIDKOT, PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDKOT

In the result, we set aside the appeal back to the files of the Assessing Officer for a limited

ITA 373/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. 6. The matter was carried in appeal where written submission has been filed by the assessee challenging the reopening of proceedings u/s 147 on the grounds that there has been no application of mind in issuing the notice u/s 148 and also on the factual issue that no such cash payment has been

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

transfer pricing issues in the case of any person having international transactions or in case of a foreign company. It has been provided under sub-section (8) of section 144C that DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 36 Assessment Year: 2018-19 In a recent judgement

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

ITA 236/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud & Sh. P. K. Anand, CAs
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153cSection 250

transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because 4 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 as per the AO the physical movement of goods could not be proved, in absence of any Bilty, weighment slip of goods, octroi receipts, and in absence of any proof