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.

398 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,037Delhi1,716Chennai715Kolkata642Jaipur448Ahmedabad401Bangalore398Hyderabad358Pune239Indore214Chandigarh210Surat160Rajkot141Visakhapatnam117Cochin111Nagpur108Raipur83Cuttack73Amritsar61Guwahati59Lucknow59Agra47Allahabad44Jodhpur39Calcutta38Panaji33Patna26Dehradun16Varanasi10Ranchi10Jabalpur9Karnataka7Telangana5SC3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income89Section 153C60Section 6849Section 69A43Disallowance43Section 14835Section 143(3)33Section 153A32Section 13231Section 250

CHANNABASSAYYA JAGADEESH ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , TUMKUR

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

ITA 684/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 139Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Unexplained money u/s 69A of I.T.Act, 1961 - Rs.15,50,323/-“ 5. Ground no. 1 raised by the appellant are general in nature and does not require adjudication. Hence dismissed. 6. Ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance

KANAKAPURA VENKATARAMANASWAMY MADHUSUDHAN KARTHIK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, RAMAMNAGARA, KARNATAKA.

Showing 1–20 of 398 · Page 1 of 20

...
29
Cash Deposit21
Penalty16

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

ITA 2028/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 10(1)Section 250Section 69A

disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 29,86,046/- by treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Page

SRI. THIMMAISH SRINIVAS ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1916/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

disallowed a sum of Rs.10,12,400/- and taxed the same under income from other sources which was disclosed as agricultural income in the statement of computation. The addition was made on the ground that crop details were missing for this agricultural income even though the assessee had submitted the Pahani. (2) Cash deposits treated as unexplained money

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 837/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R
Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R
Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

AVINASH ARADHYA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE , BENGALURU

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

ITA 1418/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 69A

money under section 69A of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. . Page 10 of 17 12. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,77,752/- under section 69A of the Act on account of gold jewelry found during search

INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIJAYAPUR vs. VIKRAM DALICHAND BANDARI , VIJAYAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Sudheendra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

unexplained Money. 8.2 The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC however deleted the impugned addition with the following observations/reasons:- (i) The assessee submitted the party wise break up of purchases, corresponding cash sales, bank account statements. The AO neither rejected the books of A/c nor doubted the purchases made by the assessee. Since the purchases were accepted, the AO could not disallow

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

money; disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and the additions made towards unexplained expenditure based on the seized

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

money; disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and the additions made towards unexplained expenditure based on the seized

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

money; disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and the additions made towards unexplained expenditure based on the seized

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

money; disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and the additions made towards unexplained expenditure based on the seized

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

money; disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and the additions made towards unexplained expenditure based on the seized

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

money; disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and the additions made towards unexplained expenditure based on the seized

SHRISHIL DHULAPPA HONAVAD ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2347/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 7,00,761/- and treating the same as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. Page 2 of 9 1,15,943/- and agricultural income

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about

JERRY MATHEW ELIAS KOVOOR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 151/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.151/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Jerry Mathew Elias Kovoor The Income Tax Officer B-1100, Chartered Coronet Ward (International Taxation) V. 1(2), Bengaluru. Arakere, Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aeqpk8249F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2021

For Appellant: Sri.Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 24Section 48Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T.Act. I shall adjudicate the above issues as under:- (i) Whether interest paid on loan goes to increase the cost of acquisition 3. The assessee had purchased a vacant site from Bangalore Development Authority by taking loan from ICICI Bank. The total interest paid amounting to Rs.2

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA ITAGI,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5, DAVANAGERE

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

ITA 593/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranprathamika Krushi Pattina The Income Tax Officer - 5 Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Itagi Shree Towers, Hadai Main Pkpssn Itagi Post, Itagi Vs. Road, Opp. Drr Hospital Ranebennur Taluk Davanagere 577002 Haveri 581115 Pan – Aabap8450D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Section 115BSection 5Section 68

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

SRI BHAGEERATHA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,HOSADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 646/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

LUV JIT JALAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 103/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Jit Jalan No.28 & 29, Ground Floor Arihant Plaza, Kamaraj Road Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 042 Ward-1(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Ailpj5661P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. b) The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits into the bank account is the funds received from appellant's father and thus the addition made needs to be deleted under the facts & circumstances of the case. c) The action of the learned assessing officer in holding

BETHEL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP ASSOCIATION ,KOPPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOPPAL

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Veeranna M Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act from undisclosed sources and added to the income of the assessee. We are of the opinion that in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022, the assessee had filed its Return of income in ITR-7 on 12.5.2022 declaring Rs.1,12,19,527/- as gross receipts/aggregate of income. The copy