Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

75 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,199 Delhi1,624 Chennai825 Kolkata643 Jaipur468 Bangalore406 Ahmedabad392 Hyderabad387 Pune262 Indore252 Chandigarh210 Surat152 Rajkot136 Raipur126 Visakhapatnam124 Cochin117 Nagpur106 Amritsar91 Cuttack75 Guwahati56 Lucknow54 Agra43 Panaji40 Calcutta38 Allahabad36 Jodhpur34 Ranchi22 Dehradun16 Karnataka15 Patna14 Varanasi11 Jabalpur10 Telangana9 SC5 Orissa2 Punjab & Haryana1 Rajasthan1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income54 Section 143(3)32 Section 26325 Section 10(38)24 Disallowance21 Unexplained Investment19 Capital Gains16 Exemption16 Deduction15 Long Term Capital Gains

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

disallowance No 1 Unexplained 62,05,000/- Addition of Rs. 62,05,000/-( being investment the difference of sales proceeds

GUDLA BHASKAR RAO,KORAPUT vs. ACIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

13

ITA 272/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

unexplained investment as against Rs.12,43,704/- determined by the learned A.O. . The learned Commissioner should have deleted the total addition. 4. For that the addition / disallowance

YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 17/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

unexplained investment as against Rs.12,43,704/- determined by the learned A.O. . The learned Commissioner should have deleted the total addition. 4. For that the addition / disallowance

SAMIR KUMAR PAIKRAY,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

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

ITA 53/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D.Nayak/K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

unexplained investment is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Asse ssme nt Ye ar :2011-12 3. For that the ld CIT(A) rightly not disallowed

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

disallowed the unsecured loans while completing the assessment order u/s. 153C of the Act. He had made an addition of Rs.l 1,40,920/- on account of unexplained/undisclosed investment in Gouri Shankar Rural Godown. The Valuation Officer had estimated the cost of construction at Rs.l,54,40,920/-. As against this, the appellant had taken term loan of Rs.99

SMT. PARBATI DAS,KENDRAPADA vs. ITO, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 133ASection 44A

disallowance is called for regarding his trading expenditure or any other account. Therefore, the addition P a g e 4 | 11 ITA No.287/CT K/2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 made on the basis of closing stock found during the survey cannot be held as sustainable. I may point out that even if the authorities below want to tinker

KALPANA SHUKLA,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Aman ShuklaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl

Section 147Section 69

unexplained investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- shown as the capital investment in M/s. Anu Gitanjali Creations was illegally held to be the income of the Appellant U/s. 69 of the IT. Act Further the details of the amount shown in the Forum below should have been confronted inviting reply otherwise the amount added is liable to be deleted

KALPANA SHUKLA,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/CTK/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Aman ShuklaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl

Section 147Section 69

unexplained investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- shown as the capital investment in M/s. Anu Gitanjali Creations was illegally held to be the income of the Appellant U/s. 69 of the IT. Act Further the details of the amount shown in the Forum below should have been confronted inviting reply otherwise the amount added is liable to be deleted

ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. SREE MAHABAHU AGRICULTURAL & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 402/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Sree Mahabahu Agricultural & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Sree Mahabahu House, Soubhagya Nagar, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar- 751003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 6093 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mihir Kumar Sahu, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 03.07.2017, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0509/15-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.37,02,854/- Made By Ao By The Way Of Disallowing The Claim Of Agricultural Income, When The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Establish The Claim Of Receipt Of An Amount Of Rs. 37,02,854/- From Agriculture Income During The Previous Year Relevant To The A.Y. 2013-14. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 37,02,854/-Made By The Ao Towards Income From Other Sources After Rejecting The Claim Of Agriculture Income & Further When In The Remand Report Dated 25.04.2017 Furnished By The Present Ao, It Has Not Been Proved That The Assessee Had Earned Income From Agriculture Activity

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Kumar Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

unexplained. The assessee has adequate agricultural income and the investment of Rs.18,00,000/- is well explained being out of that income. Genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the party are relevant only when cash credits are involved. The AO appears not to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has not received any money from anybody

ITO, WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR vs. SRI DHUSASAN ROUTRAY, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 455/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialmember & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year :2011-12 Ito, Ward 2(4), Bhubaneswar. Vs. Sri Dhusasan Routray, Plot No.485/1989, Dumduma, Aiginia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aebpr 5955 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: ShriSubhendu Dutta, DR

unexplained investment in fixed deposits” made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. Ld DR submitted that both the CIT(A) and the AO was right in confirming the remaining part of amounts on FDRs made by the assessee during the relevant period but for granting the said relief to the assessee

LALIT MURARKA,CUTTACK vs. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

investment to-ward fittings - Rs. 4,00,000/- For the rest of the addition the assessee is in appeal before your Honour in second appeal. Therefore this is a case squarely covered by the decision of Malbar Industries Co. Ltd., 243 I.T.R. 108,114 (SC) and therefore, the order u/s 263 is not sustainable under

SRI LALIT MURARKA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

investment to-ward fittings - Rs. 4,00,000/- For the rest of the addition the assessee is in appeal before your Honour in second appeal. Therefore this is a case squarely covered by the decision of Malbar Industries Co. Ltd., 243 I.T.R. 108,114 (SC) and therefore, the order u/s 263 is not sustainable under

PGS CONSTRUCTION,PURI vs. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI

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

ITA 494/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Brajabandhu Bihari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

unexplained cash investments and the addition of Rs.13,08,377/- may kindly be deleted.” 10. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted that the mistake now pointed out by the ld A.R. of the assessee is an afterthought. Hence, orders of lower authorities be confirmed. P a g e 4 | 7 ITA No. 494/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 11/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Mohapatra

Section 24Section 68Section 69Section 80Section 80I

Disallowance of Deduction claimed u/s.80- IA. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as facts in deleting the addition of Rs.6,64,84,246/-made towards Unexplained investment

DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR vs. ALLIED INFRA SUPPLIERS, GANJAM

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly

ITA 481/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2012-2013 C.O.No.42/Ctk/2018

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CIT DR

investments were made while meeting the business exigency of the Firm by partners, the learned C.I.T(A) should not have disallowed it in the hand of the Firm by applying section 40A(3) of the Act on the basis of remand report without issuing any notice to the Appellant. In view of this the impugned disallowance confirmed by the learned

VAIBHAV RONOKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 137/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-2013 2013 Vaibhav Raonka Vaibhav Raonka, C/O. Hardware Vs. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Junction, Junction, Plot Plot No.49, No.49, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aixpr 3837 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka , Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/ 201 / 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/1 12/ 2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K.AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka

unexplained investment in business of the assessee and added the same to the total income. 5. The Assessing Officer also added Rs.3,96,820/- to the income of the assessee due to discrepancy in the sundry creditors. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the confirmations

SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,NUAPADA vs. ITO, BHAWANIPATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

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

ITA 55/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

disallowed Rs.4,91,699 treating the same as unexplained investment of the Assessee, when the said investment has already been

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 133(6)Section 68

investments of those creditors under section 69. 8. Further, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer reads as under : "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof

SUNA NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

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

ITA 207/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

unexplained investment of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer observing as under: “I have carefully considered the matter and gone through the assessment records. Admittedly, the returns in this case have been filed after the survey was conducted in the premises of the firm in which the appellant is a partner

RANJAN KUMAR NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

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

ITA 208/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

unexplained investment of the assessee 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer observing as under: “I have carefully considered the matter and gone through the assessment records. Admittedly, the returns in this case have been filed after the survey was conducted in the premises of the firm in which the appellant is a partner