BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

566 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai811Delhi566Jaipur309Ahmedabad265Chennai255Kolkata166Hyderabad164Bangalore163Chandigarh120Pune96Indore87Rajkot82Raipur63Nagpur63Surat57Amritsar54Cochin46Agra41Guwahati40Visakhapatnam36Lucknow29Jodhpur28Patna24Ranchi17Cuttack7Dehradun7Allahabad7Jabalpur3Varanasi2Panaji2

Key Topics

Section 14786Section 153A78Addition to Income75Section 14870Section 6858Section 143(3)45Section 153C41Reassessment27Section 13224Section 153D

ASTRAL PROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

reassessment proceedings, even when intimation under section 143(1) has been issued. ADANI EXPORTS v. DCIT[1999J 240 ITR 224 (Guj) was distinguished”. 7.3.4 Thus, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra and the facts of the case, I am of the view that the AO has rightly taken the re-course of section 147/148

O.K. AUTO COMPONENTS PVT LTD,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, HARYANA

Showing 1–20 of 566 · Page 1 of 29

...
24
Reopening of Assessment18
Unexplained Investment13

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee stand allowed

ITA 5358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S O.K. Auto Components Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, (P) Ltd., Haryana A-131, Sgm Nagar, Faridabad Haryana – 121001 (Pan: Aaac05770E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

unexplained investment. Notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued and duly served. In response to the same, the assessee had not filed any return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice. In response to the same, the assessee has submitted partially details. AO completed the assessment

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

ITA 877/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

ITA 874/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

ITA 876/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

ITA 873/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

ITA 875/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

CHAWLA JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 69

reassessment, whereas u/s 133A of the Act, the income tax authorities are empowered to make an inventory of the stock checked or verified by him and there is no provision enabling the income tax authority conducting the survey to call for valuation. All the additions sustained by the Ld.CIT (A) are based on the value determined by the valuer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. PARAS JAIN, DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3554/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Paras Jain Ward – 58(7) 164-B, Gali No. - 5 Delhi Azad Nagar, East Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69C

unexplained investment in the reassessment proceedings and adding the same by invoking section 69 of the IT Act is not maintainable

VIJAY SADWAL,FARIDABAD HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3554/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Paras Jain Ward – 58(7) 164-B, Gali No. - 5 Delhi Azad Nagar, East Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69C

unexplained investment in the reassessment proceedings and adding the same by invoking section 69 of the IT Act is not maintainable

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 790/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 6Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act which is also related to the investment in 'shares'. 6.2 The chronology of the events in the instant case is as follows. A search operation was carried out u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of the appellant (G.D. Goenka Group) on 26.07.2017. Notice u/s 148 of the Act for the instant

PARMANAND & SONS FOOD PRODUCT PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-20

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 980/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. PARMANAND AND SONS FOODS PRODUCTS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 1330/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. DEVESH MITTAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 944/DEL/2022[2017--18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 1855/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 , DELHI vs. KWALITY TECHMECH PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 937/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT, CC-20 , NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT.LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 939/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT,CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 940/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. DEVESH MITTAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 941/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. PARMANAND AND SONS FOODS PRODUCTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 934/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit.” In the case of CIT Vs. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR (vi) 150 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “The assessee was in the business of trading in iron and steel. During the reassessment proceedings