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.

164 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai811Delhi566Jaipur309Ahmedabad265Chennai255Kolkata166Hyderabad164Bangalore163Chandigarh120Pune96Indore87Rajkot82Raipur63Nagpur63Surat57Amritsar54Cochin46Agra41Guwahati40Visakhapatnam36Lucknow29Jodhpur28Patna24Ranchi17Cuttack7Dehradun7Allahabad7Jabalpur3Varanasi2Panaji2

Key Topics

Section 153C119Addition to Income92Section 6977Search & Seizure72Section 13270Section 14756Section 143(3)52Section 14846Section 139(1)39

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

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 26336
Cash Deposit19
Unexplained Investment17
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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 25/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

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 24/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 21/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

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 38/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

GAVIREDDYGARI HARIKISHORE REDDY,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 4/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

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 44/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

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 45/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

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 46/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

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 37/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

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 23/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

SARITHA AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 75/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

ANDEM SANDHYA REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 7/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

SARITHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 76/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

GAVIREDDYGARI APARNA KALYANI,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 3/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