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.

718 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi833Mumbai718Jaipur281Chennai268Bangalore221Surat191Hyderabad167Cochin126Chandigarh123Indore113Ahmedabad104Kolkata94Pune88Visakhapatnam85Rajkot54Nagpur49Amritsar46Calcutta34Guwahati31Lucknow28Raipur27Agra25Cuttack15Patna12Jodhpur10Allahabad10Varanasi8Karnataka4Telangana4Ranchi2Dehradun2SC2Jabalpur1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)111Section 6887Addition to Income81Section 10(38)43Section 14736Section 14833Section 153A32Section 13231Search & Seizure28

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 3133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the appellant for the year. As mentioned earlier, during appellate appellant

Showing 1–20 of 718 · Page 1 of 36

...
Disallowance27
Unexplained Cash Credit26
Long Term Capital Gains26

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3132/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the appellant for the year. As mentioned earlier, during appellate appellant

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2092/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Hitesh Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Cash expenditure). (Cash expenditure). viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A-2 impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has impounded from Kaveri Bldg

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2091/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Hitesh Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Cash expenditure). (Cash expenditure). viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A-2 impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has impounded from Kaveri Bldg

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

House, Sheikh Memon the appellant at 96/106, Aabhushan House, Sheikh Memon the appellant at 96/106, Aabhushan House, Sheikh Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai, Annexure A Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai, Annexure A-1 was impounded. 1 was impounded. In the seized page No. 3 and 4 of Annexure A In the seized page No. 3 and 4 of Annexure

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

House, Sheikh Memon the appellant at 96/106, Aabhushan House, Sheikh Memon the appellant at 96/106, Aabhushan House, Sheikh Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai, Annexure A Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai, Annexure A-1 was impounded. 1 was impounded. In the seized page No. 3 and 4 of Annexure A In the seized page No. 3 and 4 of Annexure

ASAD NAEEMUDDIN MOULVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (WD)- 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3113/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(2), Room No. 8/9/10, 3Rd Floor, Faiz- 4Th Floor, Earnest House, E-Akhtar, 27, Memonwada Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Afcpm 8595 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the appellant. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the appellant. 2. The Learned Commissioner of The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has al tax (Appeals), has also erred in confirming @ 50% of the additions of confirming @ 50% of the additions of ₹45,13,124/- (rupees

DCIT CC, 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NOUVEAU GLOBAL VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes whereas cross statistical purposes whereas cross-objections of the assessee are of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3608/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, &For Respondent: Mr. S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR &
Section 153CSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of 153C upheld the validity of 153C proceedings and the r the rejection of books of accounts ejection of books of accounts, however deleted the estimated addition deleted the estimated additional profit

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 616/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7218/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7219/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 69A

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7212/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6848/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3646/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 1144/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3711/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 790/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7213/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7209/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7208/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,03,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not based on any seized material because no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and this is mentioned by the Special Auditors