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.

111 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,037Delhi1,714Chennai715Kolkata642Jaipur444Ahmedabad401Bangalore398Hyderabad358Pune239Indore214Chandigarh210Surat160Rajkot141Visakhapatnam116Cochin111Nagpur108Raipur83Cuttack73Amritsar61Guwahati59Lucknow59Agra47Allahabad44Jodhpur39Calcutta38Panaji33Patna26Dehradun16Varanasi10Ranchi10Jabalpur9Karnataka7Telangana5SC3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 250103Addition to Income43Section 153A40Section 153C37Section 143(3)36Section 80P29Section 6822Section 8022Disallowance21Section 69

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

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 111 · Page 1 of 6

19
Cash Deposit17
Deduction16

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

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

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

ITA 373/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P 25,88,593 of the Act 3 Unexplained cash credit in the books of 4,44,09,710 account u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE on account of unsecured loan taken other deposits 4 Unexplained money

JOMY JACOB,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO,WARD -3, TIRUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 699/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR
Section 69

unexplained money u/s. 69 of the act and also disallowed the agricultural income. As against the said order, the assessee

THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. PVT. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE & TPS, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd .......... Appellant Manorama Building, K K Road, Kottayam – 686001, Kerala. Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle & Tps, Kottayam.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

unexplained money by the appellant. As 3 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT regards to the disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act, it is contended

JOY THOMAS,KURAVILANGADU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Joy Thomas .......... Appellant Chitra Kozha Kuravilangadu, Kottayam 686633 [Pan: Acxpt6745J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward -1 .......... Respondent Shastri Road, Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

unexplained money of the appellant, rejecting the explanation that the cash deposits of Rs. 16,00,219/- was made out of interest collected from three parties, viz., Dr. Cyriac Mathew, Dr. Abraham P.E. and Shri Jophy Joseph, J.J. The AO made addition of Rs. 9,12,000/- being the interest expenditure paid in cash invoking the provisions of section

KINGSTAR ENTERPRISES,PERUBAVOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALUVA

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

ITA 33/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Ms.Krishna K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)

disallowing 5% of the total cost of purchase by holding that the assessee purchased rubber from unregistered dealer, i.e., agriculturists. The A.O. also made an addition of Rs.11,50,000 for alleged failure of the assessee to explain cash deposits made in the bank account. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM vs. SUNITHA MENON, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed

ITA 114/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 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

POOCHIBA VALAPPIL NELLIYAT DHANESH,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR

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

ITA 700/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Poochiba Valappil Nelliyat Dhanesh .......... Appellant Aiswarya Nivas, Near Ashokmandiram Azhikkal P.O., Kannur 670009 [Pan: Apepd6192H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd 1 & Tps, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

unexplained money of the appellant for failure of the appellant to offer explanation as to the source of said credit. The AO also brought to tax the interest income of Rs. 3,910/- and also disallowed

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 560/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

BHASURAM SHOPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 139/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.53,51,404 being the expenditure incurred in cash by the Managing Director of the assessee company, Sri.Sureshbabu B for the alleged failure of the appellant-company to establish that these expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The AO also made an addition of Rs.11,93,464 as unexplained money

SAJU ETTUNGAL PAPPU ,CHOWARA,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 841/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250

unexplained money addition of Rs.23,09,500/- 2 Saju Ettungal Pappu. representing cash deposits made during demonetisation period. Learned counsel reiterates the assessee’s stand adopted throughout that these cash deposits represent his business sale only. He has further filed record of cash balance in his hand during the relevant previous year and before the demonetisation period. The Revenue

SMT.JAMMELA,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 291/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 142(1)Section 69

disallowances with the following remarks. Unexplained investments: As per the seized documents specified below the Assessee has invested the purchase of the following properties during the relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. Seized Seller Details of Date Amount Document property (Rs.) MKG-5-A-3 & Asokan 532/05

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 293/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 142(1)Section 69

disallowances with the following remarks. Unexplained investments: As per the seized documents specified below the Assessee has invested the purchase of the following properties during the relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. Seized Seller Details of Date Amount Document property (Rs.) MKG-5-A-3 & Asokan 532/05

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 292/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 142(1)Section 69

disallowances with the following remarks. Unexplained investments: As per the seized documents specified below the Assessee has invested the purchase of the following properties during the relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. Seized Seller Details of Date Amount Document property (Rs.) MKG-5-A-3 & Asokan 532/05

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found