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.

1,404 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,404Delhi1,308Kolkata438Chennai407Ahmedabad368Jaipur365Bangalore227Chandigarh144Pune131Hyderabad130Rajkot121Indore116Surat112Visakhapatnam83Nagpur81Cochin73Amritsar71Raipur65Guwahati64Agra47Lucknow42Patna37Jodhpur25Allahabad20Cuttack20Calcutta6Dehradun5Ranchi5Telangana5Varanasi4SC2Panaji2Orissa2Karnataka2Gauhati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)119Section 14793Section 6888Addition to Income86Section 14865Section 153A43Section 153C39Reassessment37Reopening of Assessment34

JET INFRAVENTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-12(3)(1), 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 2337/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Gunjan H Kakkad
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Unexplained Cash Credits as accommodation entry in the Books of the appellant and how it will constitute income in entry in the Books of the appellant and how it will constitute income in entry in the Books of the appellant and how it will constitute income in the hands of the appellan the hands of the appellant, which are essential

Showing 1–20 of 1,404 · Page 1 of 71

...
Unexplained Cash Credit26
Section 69C24
Section 143(2)22

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

reassessment was done. The assessee has also failed to substantiate the other factual aspect that the Ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has not verified the information for which reopening was made and that the notice was issued by non jurisdictional ITO. We also find no merit in the contention of the assessee that the approval given by Ld. JCIT

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

reassessment was done. The assessee has also failed to substantiate the other factual aspect that the Ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has not verified the information for which reopening was made and that the notice was issued by non jurisdictional ITO. We also find no merit in the contention of the assessee that the approval given by Ld. JCIT

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank accounts only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank assessee submitted that cash deposited was withdrawn out of bank accounts only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements but only. The assessee submitted cash flow statements

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1306/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68Section 69C

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and of Rs.5,75,037/ the Act and of Rs.5,75,037/- unexplained expenditure u unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of Act has been made by assessing officer merely based on the some Act has been made by assessing officer merely based on the some Act has been made by assessing officer merely based

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the section 68 of the Act. 13.1 The relevant part of the order of the The relevant part of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer related to ground no. 4 related to ground no. 4 is reproduced as under: “12. The assessee has claimed following loans taken during they under

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the section 68 of the Act. 13.1 The relevant part of the order of the The relevant part of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer related to ground no. 4 related to ground no. 4 is reproduced as under: “12. The assessee has claimed following loans taken during they under

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,45,300/- against accommodation entry received i.e. basis on the which assessment was reopened. In this manner

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,45,300/- against accommodation entry received i.e. basis on the which assessment was reopened. In this manner

NIKHIL RASHIKLAL VORA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3628/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain
Section 148

unexplained cash credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received during the Year. Year. 2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel

INTELENET GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5844/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Acit – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot Cst No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. Pan No. Aaaci7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri S.K Tyagi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

reassessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 23.03.2015 had omitted to add the amount of share premium of Rs. 32,21,48,679/- that was treated by him as an unexplained cash credit

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

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

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

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

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7211/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

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 3710/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

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

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

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