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.

79 results for “depreciation”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi491Mumbai490Bangalore211Jaipur151Chennai125Kolkata121Ahmedabad107Pune79Chandigarh65Cochin52Hyderabad52Amritsar45Indore43Nagpur33Guwahati29Raipur27Cuttack23Karnataka19Surat17Lucknow15Rajkot10Visakhapatnam9Allahabad9SC8Jodhpur7Ranchi7Agra6Patna6Varanasi5Telangana4Panaji3Jabalpur2Dehradun1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 153A88Addition to Income73Section 13269Section 80I54Section 132(4)51Section 133A45Section 143(3)44Disallowance36Section 69B31Section 14A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4

25
Search & Seizure24
Survey u/s 133A24

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1282/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil, MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

ITA 1025/PUN/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Mar 2019AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

income from undisclosed sources and made an addition of Rs.16,283/-. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons given in Para No. 7 on page Nos. 12 and 13 of the impugned appellate order has restricted the addition to Rs.8,142/-. The appellant most respectfully submits that it is a well settled law that in assessment made in consequence

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

ITA 1026/PUN/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Mar 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

income from undisclosed sources and made an addition of Rs.16,283/-. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons given in Para No. 7 on page Nos. 12 and 13 of the impugned appellate order has restricted the addition to Rs.8,142/-. The appellant most respectfully submits that it is a well settled law that in assessment made in consequence

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

ITA 1027/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Mar 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

income from undisclosed sources and made an addition of Rs.16,283/-. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons given in Para No. 7 on page Nos. 12 and 13 of the impugned appellate order has restricted the addition to Rs.8,142/-. The appellant most respectfully submits that it is a well settled law that in assessment made in consequence

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

undisclosed income from the incriminating documents is by the way of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act It is pertinent to mention no fresh information was collected by the Ld. AO or no information has come to the notice of Ld. AO in normal course, other than information collected

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -1,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1609/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

undisclosed expenditure on revenue account, the case of the Revenue is that the said unaccounted expenditure of Rs.48,59,292/-, the same cannot be considered as an allowable business expenditure in view of the provisions of proviso to section 37(1) of the Act. In this regard, we perused the break-up of details furnished before us and, as discussed

DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE vs. GERA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 767/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

undisclosed expenditure on revenue account, the case of the Revenue is that the said unaccounted expenditure of Rs.48,59,292/-, the same cannot be considered as an allowable business expenditure in view of the provisions of proviso to section 37(1) of the Act. In this regard, we perused the break-up of details furnished before us and, as discussed

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

undisclosed expenditure on revenue account, the case of the Revenue is that the said unaccounted expenditure of Rs.48,59,292/-, the same cannot be considered as an allowable business expenditure in view of the provisions of proviso to section 37(1) of the Act. In this regard, we perused the break-up of details furnished before us and, as discussed

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 467/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

undisclosed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. section 153A is not de novo assessment; therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 469/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

undisclosed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. section 153A is not de novo assessment; therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 468/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

undisclosed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. section 153A is not de novo assessment; therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

undisclosed income, notwithstanding that returns for these years have already been processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. 28. So far as the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Sejal Jewellery & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra), he submitted that the said decision is distinguishable and not applicable

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action