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.

387 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,199Delhi1,624Chennai825Kolkata643Jaipur468Bangalore406Ahmedabad392Hyderabad387Pune262Indore252Chandigarh210Surat152Rajkot136Raipur126Visakhapatnam124Cochin117Nagpur106Amritsar91Cuttack75Guwahati56Lucknow54Agra43Panaji40Calcutta38Allahabad36Jodhpur34Ranchi22Dehradun16Karnataka15Patna14Varanasi11Jabalpur10Telangana9SC5Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income96Section 143(3)77Section 153C72Section 6860Section 13253Section 153A52Section 37(1)37Search & Seizure37Disallowance37

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 427/HYD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

Disallowance of loss 3,35,01,000 -- 2008 4. Undisclosed Profit 12 ITA.Nos.427, 428 & 429 /Hyd./2025 earned out of real 80,00,000 80,00,000 estate transaction 5. Unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the 2,09,64,300 2,09,64,300 IT Act 1. Unexplained investment/deficit 1,30,00,000 2,03,91,600 cash balance

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 387 · Page 1 of 20

...
Section 14827
Section 234A25
Cash Deposit25
ITA 428/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

Disallowance of loss 3,35,01,000 -- 2008 4. Undisclosed Profit 12 ITA.Nos.427, 428 & 429 /Hyd./2025 earned out of real 80,00,000 80,00,000 estate transaction 5. Unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the 2,09,64,300 2,09,64,300 IT Act 1. Unexplained investment/deficit 1,30,00,000 2,03,91,600 cash balance

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 429/HYD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

Disallowance of loss 3,35,01,000 -- 2008 4. Undisclosed Profit 12 ITA.Nos.427, 428 & 429 /Hyd./2025 earned out of real 80,00,000 80,00,000 estate transaction 5. Unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the 2,09,64,300 2,09,64,300 IT Act 1. Unexplained investment/deficit 1,30,00,000 2,03,91,600 cash balance

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1139/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 216/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1484/HYD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1485/HYD/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 215/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1140/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/HYD/2022[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 553/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

unexplained investment and thereby, making the disallowance. 3.2.2. The unexplained investment are dealt in section 69 of the Act. The relevant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 555/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

unexplained investment and thereby, making the disallowance. 3.2.2. The unexplained investment are dealt in section 69 of the Act. The relevant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 556/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

unexplained investment and thereby, making the disallowance. 3.2.2. The unexplained investment are dealt in section 69 of the Act. The relevant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 554/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

unexplained investment and thereby, making the disallowance. 3.2.2. The unexplained investment are dealt in section 69 of the Act. The relevant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 509/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

unexplained investment and thereby, making the disallowance. 3.2.2. The unexplained investment are dealt in section 69 of the Act. The relevant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 510/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

unexplained investment and thereby, making the disallowance. 3.2.2. The unexplained investment are dealt in section 69 of the Act. The relevant

CH.CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU ,PRODDATUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 830/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

unexplained investment, can not be upheld. The law requires the revenue to prove that the 15 Ch.Chandrasekhar Naidu investments were made by the assessee outside the books of account. In view of the above, we find that the assessee is entitled relief. Accordingly, we grant relief to the assessee. 27. The last ground raised by the assessee is with respect