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.

34 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai397Delhi320Chennai124Bangalore95Jaipur88Kolkata74Ahmedabad61Hyderabad52Chandigarh34Pune25Indore24Raipur19Visakhapatnam18Lucknow18Cochin12Nagpur12Guwahati11Surat10Rajkot10Allahabad7Varanasi7Agra6Ranchi5Amritsar5Cuttack5Jodhpur4Patna3SC3Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Telangana1Karnataka1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 153A29Section 26328Addition to Income24Section 143(3)16Section 13215Section 250(6)11Depreciation11Section 6810Disallowance9

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source not being known, such deemed income will not fall even under the head 'Income from other sources". Therefore, the corresponding deductions which

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

Search & Seizure7
Section 153D6
Section 132(1)6

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 69A

money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are not attracted on the surrendered amount of Rs. 15 lacs. The said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was offered in case any discrepancy is found

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

ITA 760/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to the issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already deleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are in the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127, para 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

ITA 768/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to\nthe issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already\ndeleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are\nin the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127,\npara 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

ITA 766/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to\nthe issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already\ndeleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are\nin the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127,\npara 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DSG PAPERS PVT LTD #6, GREEN VIEW COLONY,PATIALA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

ITA 788/CHANDI/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to\nthe issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already\ndeleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are\nin the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127,\npara 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

ITA 18/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to the issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already deleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are in the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127, para 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

ITA 765/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to\nthe issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already\ndeleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are\nin the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127,\npara 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

ITA 761/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to\nthe issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already\ndeleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are\nin the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127,\npara 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

ITA 764/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

money u/s 69A. This addition is linked to\nthe issue of cash generation due to parallel invoicing and we have already\ndeleted the addition on account of parallel invoicing as above, and we are\nin the agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in Page No. 126 & 127,\npara 6.7 and for the sake of brevity, the same

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs. 9,01,873/- without any justification. ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 3 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

ITA 1165/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65B

depreciation and interest on car loan.\n5.\nThat the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of\nRs.34110/- made by the in respect of unexplained investment in\njewelry.\n5.1 That the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of\nRs.34110/- on account of unexplained investment in jewelry without\nappreciating that the said investment

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI, CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2 CHD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65B

depreciation and interest on car loan.\n5. That the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of\nRs.34110/- made by the in respect of unexplained investment in\njewelry.\n5.1 That the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of\nRs.34110/- on account of unexplained investment in jewelry without\nappreciating that the said investment

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 610/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

depreciation, etc., during the relevant FYs and that it was on these facts, that the ld. CIT(A) held and correctly so, that M/s Maa Jagdambe existed merely on the paper, and there was no justification for such abnormal increase in its share price. ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 42 OUR OBSERVATIONS : 10. In this regard

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 655/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

depreciation, etc., during the relevant FYs and that it was on these facts, that the ld. CIT(A) held and correctly so, that M/s Maa Jagdambe existed merely on the paper, and there was no justification for such abnormal increase in its share price. ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 42 OUR OBSERVATIONS : 10. In this regard

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

depreciation Rs. 11,98,184/- Rs.26.91.805/- Total GROUND NO. 1 3. The assessee vide ground No.1 has contested the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) on account of unexplained loans raised from six parties as mentioned in ground No. 1 of the appeal

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

depreciation Rs. 11,98,184/- Rs.26.91.805/- Total GROUND NO. 1 3. The assessee vide ground No.1 has contested the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) on account of unexplained loans raised from six parties as mentioned in ground No. 1 of the appeal

BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69Section 69A

money for purchase of MRI is paid out of our own funds & from bank accounts of assessee." This made imperative to prepare an excel sheet presentation from the data submitted to show what we submitted on 19.12.2019 before the LdAO against his SCN dated 18.12.2019 is absolutely correct and there isno unexplained investments. Here again the Ld. ITO Mandi

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported