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.

38 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi603Mumbai522Jaipur230Bangalore189Hyderabad183Chennai143Chandigarh111Cochin102Ahmedabad87Indore76Pune71Rajkot62Nagpur60Amritsar48Kolkata38Raipur35Visakhapatnam35Surat35Lucknow28Guwahati27Agra26Patna17Jodhpur13Allahabad10Cuttack8SC4Jabalpur4Dehradun3Panaji2Varanasi2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 6838Addition to Income36Section 143(3)32Section 25026Section 14725Section 26313Section 14813Section 14A12Section 143(2)11

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 250Section 54F

house was being shown in the balance sheet of previous\nyear and he was not having two residential properties, but only some\naddition was done to the existing property. The Ld. AO has not\nmentioned the details of the property and the contention of the\nassessee is verified from the details filed before us. This fact could\nnot be rebutted

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

House Property11
Cash Deposit10
Unexplained Cash Credit9
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

BIBHU PRASAD SAHOO,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 21/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

House Property amounting to ₹7,15,295/- and interest income of ₹37,638/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee requiring source of cash deposits in the bank during the year

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

MUKHTAR AHMAD & SONS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2583/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2583/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukhtar Ahmad & Sons Developers Pvt. Ltd.……………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aaccj0584F] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 21, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate That None Of The Conditions Precedent Existed For And/Or Were Fulfilled By The Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kolkata For His Specious Action Of Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of The Share Capital Including Share Premium Received By The Appellant In The Instant Case & The Alleged Addition In

Section 250Section 54Section 68

house property. The amount was transferred through bank account. The details of the property sold have also been mentioned and the total sale consideration of Rs.5,35 crores has been stated to have been received by the said Chandra Kumar Sah vide cheque no.020022 drawn at HDFC, Rathyatra, Varanasi. The PAN no. and address and copy of income-tax return

ROHIT JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 548/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohit Jaiswal Dcit, Circle 49(1) Vs Aj-55, Sector-It, Salt 169, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Lake, Kolkata-700 091 Bose Rd, West Bengal Kolkata-700 014 West Bengal [Pan : Acipj7386G] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nicholash Murmu, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

investment for purchasing two immovable properties during demonetization period. In reply, Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the cash deposits are from regular cash sales of the TVS Vehicles. He also submitted that for the purchase of immovable properties maximum amount has been taken as loan from the bank and the remaining amount has been paid from

SIDDHARTHA DAS,BOLPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), SURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)

unexplained investment for purchase of property and accordingly added the sum of Rs. 23,50,000/-. The underlying facts are that the AO noted that the assessee has purchased a residential property at Mouza-Bolpur, Birbhum at a purchase consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- . As per sale deed collected from D.S.R, Birbhum through notice

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1294/KOL/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

unexplained investments u/s 69A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.1294/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ashok Vikram Poddar 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee was drawing huge salaries of Rs. 1,01,99,140/- from two concerns namely M/s Jain Housing Agency and M/s Vikash Builders. Besides the assessee

PRESSMAN REALTY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

unexplained income, this expenditure should not be charged to the profit and loss account as all these expenses related to house property and were wrongly charged into the profit and loss account. Finally the AO rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of loss of 1,11,05,354/- in the assessment framed

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 10/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,14,825/- being the difference between the stamp duty and market value which is deemed income of the assessee

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, CIT, D/R
Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 54Section 68Section 69

unexplained cash deposit at Rs.7,41,700/-. (iii) Undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act at Rs.45,17,017/- for the undisclosed investment made in purchase of flat. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to detailed written submissions as well as placing reliance on various

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

unexplained due to paucity of the regular fund, only the corpus fund could explain the source of fund towards investment in mutual fund. It is pertinent to mention here that the corpus fund has been created by accumulation of money claimed as exempt u/s. 11(1)(d) in the year of receipt. The utilization of the fund is restricted

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Property Investments (P) Ltd -vs- ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 256 (Karnataka) (viii) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC) (ix) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi) CIT -vs- Dataware Private Limited ITAT No. 263 of 2011 : GA No. 2856 of 2011 (x) 7 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Property Investments (P) Ltd -vs- ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 256 (Karnataka) (viii) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC) (ix) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi) CIT -vs- Dataware Private Limited ITAT No. 263 of 2011 : GA No. 2856 of 2011 (x) 7 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1158/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit received by the assessee in the form of share capital and share premium. The Revenue authorities have alleged that the assessee has merely furnished the documentary evidences but the assessee failed to appear before the Revenue authorities for recording their statements. The AO has also alleged that the assessee has been unable to discharge its primary onus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

unexplained cash credit was to be deleted [2022] 140 taxmann.com 308 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH Greensaphire Infratech (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Whether amendment in section68 by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1-4-2013 is prospective in nature and thus applicable from assessment year 2013-14 - Held, yes - Assessee-company during year increased