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.

320 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai475Delhi320Chennai133Bangalore120Jaipur116Kolkata77Ahmedabad75Hyderabad53Chandigarh34Pune33Indore28Raipur27Cochin24Surat21Lucknow18Nagpur17Visakhapatnam14Rajkot12Guwahati12Ranchi8Agra7Amritsar7Varanasi7Jodhpur6Cuttack6Allahabad5Telangana5Karnataka3SC3Dehradun2Jabalpur2Patna2

Key Topics

Section 68108Addition to Income90Section 143(3)74Section 14739Section 26333Section 153A32Section 143(2)30Disallowance29Section 153C28Section 69

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3262/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and ShriFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Charudahry, CIT
Section 132

investment on unaccounted and unrecorded purchase 140384392 iv. Depreciation on machinery 2056298 v. Addition on account of share capital 29890056 vi. Undisclosed income on account of 7692177 unexplained

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3263/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 320 · Page 1 of 16

...
25
Depreciation18
Penalty16
ITAT Delhi
23 Nov 2021
AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and ShriFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Charudahry, CIT
Section 132

investment on unaccounted and unrecorded purchase 140384392 iv. Depreciation on machinery 2056298 v. Addition on account of share capital 29890056 vi. Undisclosed income on account of 7692177 unexplained

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3746/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

unexplained investment in the plant & machinery, when according to him there were no plant & machinery. 7. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 1,92,06,750/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3749/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

unexplained investment in the plant & machinery, when according to him there were no plant & machinery. 7. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 1,92,06,750/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3747/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

unexplained investment in the plant & machinery, when according to him there were no plant & machinery. 7. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 1,92,06,750/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3745/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR

unexplained investment in the plant & machinery, when according to him there were no plant & machinery. 7. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 1,92,06,750/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

depreciation : Rs. 4,83,994 iv. Add: Interest Payment disallowed : Rs. 1,20,213 v. Add: Personal expenses : Rs. 18,482 1,52,50,621 3. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES i. As per the return : NIL ii. Unexplained Sundry Creditor : Rs. 54,29,787 ii. Unexplained in capital : Rs. 44,32,000 iv. Unexplained investment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL JAIN, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

investment nor any unexplained expenditure or otherwise any unexplained asset was found during the search action so far as the aforesaid surrender of Rs. 15 lacs was concerned. In these circumstances, the aforesaid surrender of Rs. 15 lacs can be said to have been offered to cover up the discrepancies in respect of likely disallowances of claims, if any, relating

CHIPSAN AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3219/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Making Addition U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Pertaining To Takeover Of Asset By The Appellant Company & Made Addition Of Rs.1,30,10,398/- As Unexplained Investment, Which Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice, Illegal & Bad In Law.

Section 143(2)Section 69

unexplained investment, which is against the Principle of Natural Justice, illegal and bad in law. ii. That the additions of Rs.5,85,003/- on account of Depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

unexplained investment.” (xix) In the case of CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF, ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del), the Court had held as under:- "This Court in its order dated 28.9.2012 held that (a) Section 69B in terms requires the assessing officer to first prove that the assessee has actually expended an amount which he has not fully recorded

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

unexplained investment.” (xix) In the case of CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF, ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del), the Court had held as under:- "This Court in its order dated 28.9.2012 held that (a) Section 69B in terms requires the assessing officer to first prove that the assessee has actually expended an amount which he has not fully recorded

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (I) PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1059/Del/2015 is partly allowed

ITA 1059/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri C N Swain CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 35ASection 36Section 37(1)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the interest expenditure, amounting to Rs 2,216,117 and Rs 454,131, disallowed in the preceding assessment years (i.e. AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 respectively). 2, Ground No. 2 - Disallowance of circuit accruals 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

RSWM LTD,BHILWARA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 145/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of education cess of Rs. 81,43,988/- even though same is eligible deduction under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. That

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI vs. RSWM LTD, KHARIGRAM

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1928/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of education cess of Rs. 81,43,988/- even though same is eligible deduction under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. That

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI vs. RSWM LTD, KHARIGRAM

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1929/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of education cess of Rs. 81,43,988/- even though same is eligible deduction under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. That

RSWM LTD,BHILWARA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

unexplained investment, the impugned addition u/s 69 is contrary to facts and invalid. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of education cess of Rs. 81,43,988/- even though same is eligible deduction under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. That

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

unexplained investment in construction of property and on account of advertisement expenses of Rs. 2,92,21,682/-. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the disallowance of depreciation

DCIT EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD vs. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI , KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2839/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

unexplained investment in construction of property and on account of advertisement expenses of Rs. 2,92,21,682/-. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the disallowance of depreciation

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6248/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

unexplained investment in construction of property and on account of advertisement expenses of Rs. 2,92,21,682/-. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the disallowance of depreciation

SMT. MEETA GUTGUTIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1013/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Katra, CIT, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

unexplained investment in stock - Rs.45,74,503/- 2.1. The First Appellate Authority granted part relief. 2.2. Aggrieved both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us. 3. We first take up assessee’s appeal in ITA 1013/Del/2013 pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 which is on the following grounds. “That the learned CIT (Appeal