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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,244Delhi928Jaipur391Kolkata338Chennai322Ahmedabad266Hyderabad223Bangalore213Pune131Indore124Chandigarh112Cochin108Nagpur72Surat68Rajkot53Amritsar51Guwahati49Visakhapatnam41Calcutta36Lucknow35Agra30Panaji29Raipur29Cuttack25Jodhpur16Allahabad9Ranchi7Karnataka7Dehradun7SC4Rajasthan3Jabalpur3Telangana2Patna2Varanasi2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income7Section 69A6Section 143(3)5Section 115B5Section 153C4Section 54F4Section 133(6)3Section 1322Section 1442

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2336/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153C

money in cash by the assessee from Sh. Rameshwar Havelia is proved beyond doubt by the orders of the Income Tax Department itself. Hence, the source for making payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra of Rs. 1 crore in cash stands clearly proved and explained. Hence, in our considered opinion, there cannot be any unexplained investment made by the assessee

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 117/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
Section 132
Unexplained Investment2
Search & Seizure2
Disallowance2
Section 153C

money in cash by the assessee from Sh. Rameshwar Havelia is proved beyond doubt by the orders of the Income Tax Department itself. Hence, the source for making payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra of Rs. 1 crore in cash stands clearly proved and explained. Hence, in our considered opinion, there cannot be any unexplained investment made by the assessee

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Gains, Copy of Sale and Purchase Deeds and the mode of payment of cost of improvements. 8. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act, where one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against his bill raised

PARDEEP KUMAR WALIA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

capital gain was not declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. 3. In the assessment order, AO observed that a search and survey action was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Mehta Brothers & Others Group of cases on 24.11.2022 and the resident of Shri Raj Lumba was also covered. During the course of search, certain

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 149/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(1)

capital gains from the sale of said property, assessee claimed deduction u/s 54EC for investment in NHAI Bond of INR 50 Lakhs and further claimed deduction of INR 1,90,86,224/- u/s 54F of the Act proportionately out of total cost of acquisition of new house property for INR 2,10,19,420/-. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ansaul Sachar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

money is received from Head office for project office expenses and payments to be made on behalf of head office are controlled. As such there is no separate column in Income Tax return to show such an account. Hence, this balance has been controlled under the head Share capital' due to administrative reason. During the year under consideration, there were

NIRMAL SINGH,KASHIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 36/DDN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s pleadings all along. A perusal of the assessment order at page 2 in para 4 suggest that the assessee has sold an immovable property declared sale consideration of Rs.60