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.

73 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,080Delhi802Chennai370Jaipur289Kolkata284Hyderabad268Bangalore230Ahmedabad229Rajkot134Chandigarh122Pune121Indore115Cochin90Surat88Nagpur73Visakhapatnam51Raipur50Amritsar46Guwahati46Lucknow42Allahabad40Agra36Jodhpur32Panaji31Patna27Cuttack18Dehradun17Ranchi9Varanasi8SC3Jabalpur3H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 153C111Section 143(3)70Addition to Income68Section 153A65Section 6864Section 69C28Section 13224Section 1124Section 69A19Unexplained Cash Credit

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 249/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

disallowances where no incriminating evidence was found during the search proceeding at the premise of the assessee. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT is justified in law and fact for upholding an additions to the tune of Rs. 24,21,318/- as unexplained income under Sec 69A 4. Whether the Ld. CIT is justified in law and fact for upholding

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

19
Disallowance15
Survey u/s 133A14

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , AKOLA

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

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 36Section 68Section 69A

money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals was justified in affirming addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether on the facts

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

disallowing the appellant's unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Act and income from undisclosed sources. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,00,000/- is hereby confirmed.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

disallowing the appellant's unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Act and income from undisclosed sources. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,00,000/- is hereby confirmed.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before

KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as On money. The Ld. AR submitted that the documents are found from the premise of Saptagirhi Builder and Developers during survey proceeding and any presumption under section 132(4A) /292C arises against Saptagirhi Builder and Developers. The Ld. AR further submitted a detailed reply in support of its contention. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as On money. The Ld. AR submitted that the documents are found from the premise of Saptagirhi Builder and Developers during survey proceeding and any presumption under section 132(4A) /292C arises against Saptagirhi Builder and Developers. The Ld. AR further submitted a detailed reply in support of its contention. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as On money. The Ld. AR submitted that the documents are found from the premise of Saptagirhi Builder and Developers during survey proceeding and any presumption under section 132(4A) /292C arises against Saptagirhi Builder and Developers. The Ld. AR further submitted a detailed reply in support of its contention. Further

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

money and same remains unexplained. Addition made by A.O. on assumption and presumption under deeming provisions of section 68 or 69A is highly arbitrary and unjustified. E) The A.O. himself is not clear as to which of the provisions is applicable in respect to loan transaction. This is demonstrative of the fact that no evidence on record to either invoke

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 292/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

disallowance of interest expenses by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 22,39,003/-on account of unexplained investment in lands, by admitting additional evidence

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 23/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

disallowance of interest expenses by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 22,39,003/-on account of unexplained investment in lands, by admitting additional evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 337/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

unexplained money under section 69A to the interest income under head income from other sources, assessable as per normal provisions of the statute. The learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act is 13 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 unjustified as the source of interest is known

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 336/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

unexplained money under section 69A to the interest income under head income from other sources, assessable as per normal provisions of the statute. The learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act is 13 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 unjustified as the source of interest is known

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 335/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

unexplained money under section 69A to the interest income under head income from other sources, assessable as per normal provisions of the statute. The learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act is 13 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 unjustified as the source of interest is known

MRS BHAVANA RAJU SHINGOTE, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

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

ITA 123/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 234Section 234ASection 69

disallowing appeal only on basis of technical reason of minor delay, without consider the facts of case. 2. That the learned CIT appeal erred in adding Rs 38,23,000 to the income of appellant u/s 69 A of the Act. 3. That the learned CIT appeal erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

unexplained creditors. 22. The observations of the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the above issue are as under:- “41. I have considered the assessment order, submission of assessee, remand report, assessee's response to it, copies of accounts of creditors etc. AO merely disallowed these creditors since nothing was given

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

unexplained investments u/s 69 without considering the facts & submissions in proper perspective and on presumption & suspicion. The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT (Appeals) is improper, unjust and deserves to be deleted. 2. THAT the assessment made at Rs 91,87,198/- as against returned income at Rs. 66,87,200/- and thereby raising additional demand

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 27/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 26/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 140/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under