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.

54 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai419Delhi319Chennai110Jaipur100Bangalore89Ahmedabad83Kolkata73Hyderabad67Chandigarh54Pune42Indore36Visakhapatnam33Nagpur23Guwahati20Cochin20Raipur19Lucknow18Surat10Rajkot10Cuttack9Allahabad7Agra7Varanasi7Jodhpur6Amritsar6Patna4SC3Ranchi3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Karnataka1Telangana1Jabalpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income43Section 26336Section 153A29Section 143(3)23Depreciation21Section 13217Section 250(6)15Section 6814Disallowance12

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 54 · Page 1 of 3

Section 6911
Limitation/Time-bar11
Search & Seizure8

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143Section 153BSection 69

depreciation not allowed against this surrendered income. The AO has not accepted the contention of the appellant in the assessment order due to following reasons:- (i) The AO has stated that the recoverable income of Rs. 11 crores is from real estate transactions may be true but the fact remains that on the due date of search, the appellant

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 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

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

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

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR
Section 250(6)

depreciation from the surrendered income. 7 A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2013-14 4. That provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new Grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed

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

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, 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

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MARSHAL MACHINES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

ITA 57/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. SudFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh
Section 133ASection 69

money or the value of articles not recorded in the books of account or the unexplained expenditure may be deemed to be the income of such assessee. It follows that the moment a satisfactory explanation is given about such nature and source by the assessee, then the source would stand disclosed and will, therefore, be known and the income would

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 319/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 320/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 345/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared