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.

212 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,343Delhi1,263Chennai459Jaipur432Ahmedabad353Kolkata320Bangalore282Hyderabad212Chandigarh151Indore138Pune138Rajkot112Amritsar104Surat95Raipur75Nagpur73Visakhapatnam73Agra61Guwahati56Cochin52Lucknow41Jodhpur29Patna26Ranchi17Cuttack15Allahabad10Dehradun9Jabalpur5Varanasi5Telangana5Karnataka3SC3Calcutta2Orissa2Panaji2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C153Addition to Income88Section 14880Section 6962Section 14762Section 13258Section 143(3)58Search & Seizure54Section 26348

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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)

unexplained investment whereas as per the very same seized material, the assessee has paid the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,45,22,768/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,43,51,967/- is not relates to assessee and either pertains to third parties wherever the assessee has paid advance for purchase of land jointly with others. Since

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 212 · Page 1 of 11

...
Unexplained Investment29
Section 153A28
Limitation/Time-bar24
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)

unexplained investment whereas as per the very same seized material, the assessee has paid the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,45,22,768/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,43,51,967/- is not relates to assessee and either pertains to third parties wherever the assessee has paid advance for purchase of land jointly with others. Since

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)

unexplained investment whereas as per the very same seized material, the assessee has paid the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,45,22,768/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,43,51,967/- is not relates to assessee and either pertains to third parties wherever the assessee has paid advance for purchase of land jointly with others. Since

LATE VANAJA DARUMAGARI L/R RAM MOHAN RAO DARUMAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 466/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.467/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Darumagari, Secunderabad Ward-15(1) Pan:Agapd7084P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.466/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Vanaja Darumagari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Shri Ram Mohan Rao Ward-15(1) Darumagari, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Akqpd6499Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Arun Lal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Husband & Wife Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Dated 10/01/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad For The A.Y.2008-09. The Issues

For Appellant: Shri Arun Lal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 69

unexplained investment made by the assessee in purchase of the land as an undisputed transaction. It appears that the sale deed was executed in the name of a non-existing partnership firm to create a smoke screen and hide the transaction in the hands of the purchaser including the assessee. The sale deed is a misleading document executed

RAM MOHAN RAO DARUMAGARI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 467/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.467/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Darumagari, Secunderabad Ward-15(1) Pan:Agapd7084P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.466/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Vanaja Darumagari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Shri Ram Mohan Rao Ward-15(1) Darumagari, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Akqpd6499Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Arun Lal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Husband & Wife Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Dated 10/01/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad For The A.Y.2008-09. The Issues

For Appellant: Shri Arun Lal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 69

unexplained investment made by the assessee in purchase of the land as an undisputed transaction. It appears that the sale deed was executed in the name of a non-existing partnership firm to create a smoke screen and hide the transaction in the hands of the purchaser including the assessee. The sale deed is a misleading document executed

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

unexplained investment u/sec.69A in purchase of property of Rs.55,75,000/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.57,37,887/- as against the returned income of Rs.225 by the assessee. 10 ITA.No.986/Hyd./2024 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal challenging

MR. N. SRIDHAR,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT(OSD), RANGE-12, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1401/HYD/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.J. Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

unexplained investment in Machinery. During the assessment proceedings, the DDIT, Vijayawada made enquiries of sources of source and that too behind the back of assessee’s promoters after a lapse of time and no cross-examination was provided. Assessees filed detailed replies in the case of company’s appeal and Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions so made. Anticipating an adverse

MR. N. SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-12, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1400/HYD/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.J. Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

unexplained investment in Machinery. During the assessment proceedings, the DDIT, Vijayawada made enquiries of sources of source and that too behind the back of assessee after a lapse of time and no cross-examination was provided. Assessees filed detailed replies in the case of company’s appeal and Ld.CIT(A) I.T.A. No. 1400/Hyd/2012 :- 5 -: deleted the additions so made. Anticipating

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA HUF ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1084/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Siddharth MantriFor Respondent: Sri Subramanyam Tota, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 293BSection 69B

unexplained if otherwise the sources of investments are properly explained. Therefore the CIT (A) ought to have deleted the addition which was wrongly made on above premise. 5. The CIT (A) has wrongly based his order on the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in case of M/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., (103 taxmann. Com48), as the relevant facts

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 12/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 11/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 10/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 20/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 14/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

BALLELA SAI SREE,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 8/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

PARIGE VENKAT RAM REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 18/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

GUDURI VENKATA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 17/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 26/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

GUDDURI VENKATA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 16/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 15/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded