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.

406 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,199Delhi1,624Chennai825Kolkata643Jaipur468Bangalore406Ahmedabad392Hyderabad387Pune262Indore252Chandigarh210Surat152Rajkot136Raipur126Visakhapatnam124Cochin117Nagpur106Amritsar91Cuttack75Guwahati56Lucknow54Agra43Panaji40Calcutta38Allahabad36Jodhpur34Ranchi22Dehradun16Karnataka15Patna14Varanasi11Jabalpur10Telangana9SC5Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income86Section 153C53Section 13252Section 14849Section 6847Section 143(3)44Section 6939Disallowance32Section 69A28Section 131

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowances towards unexplained investments based on material found in the course of search; unexplained expenditure based on a ledger of M/s. Indian

Showing 1–20 of 406 · Page 1 of 21

...
28
Survey u/s 133A22
Unexplained Investment21

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowances towards unexplained investments based on material found in the course of search; unexplained expenditure based on a ledger of M/s. Indian

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 772/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowances towards unexplained investments based on material found in the course of search; unexplained expenditure based on a ledger of M/s. Indian

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowances towards unexplained investments based on material found in the course of search; unexplained expenditure based on a ledger of M/s. Indian

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowances towards unexplained investments based on material found in the course of search; unexplained expenditure based on a ledger of M/s. Indian

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

disallowances towards unexplained investments based on material found in the course of search; unexplained expenditure based on a ledger of M/s. Indian

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

investment were made. Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru Page 2 of 29 4. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 1,96,39,997 as unexplained

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

Disallowance of claim under Section 10B : Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. (ii) Unexplained investment u/s. 69 : A.Y. 2008-09. (iii) Unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 483/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 195

unexplained investment was made. Therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue. 16. The next issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CITA(A) erred in deleting the disallowances

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

ITA 571/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

investments ofassessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (2018-TIOL-2326- HC-MAD-IT) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

ITA 570/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

investments ofassessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (2018-TIOL-2326- HC-MAD-IT) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

ITA 569/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

investments ofassessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (2018-TIOL-2326- HC-MAD-IT) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy