Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

62 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai493 Delhi317 Jaipur131 Chennai120 Bangalore118 Ahmedabad106 Kolkata76 Hyderabad70 Pune62 Chandigarh54 Indore43 Nagpur27 Raipur27 Cochin26 Visakhapatnam24 Surat24 Guwahati20 Lucknow16 Rajkot11 Cuttack11 Amritsar10 Jodhpur9 Agra9 Varanasi7 Allahabad6 Ranchi5 Telangana5 SC3 Karnataka3 Jabalpur3 Patna3 Dehradun2

Key Topics

Section 17172 Addition to Income50 Section 69B30 Disallowance28 Section 271B25 Section 13221 Depreciation17 Section 133A16 Section 69A16 Section 40A(3)

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

unexplained investment in property (depreciable) at Sr. No. 3, unexplained investment in property (non-depreciable) at Sr. No. 4, unexplained

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

14

Unexplained Investment14

Survey u/s 133A13

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1300/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

unexplained investment in property (depreciable) at Sr. No. 3, unexplained investment in property (non-depreciable) at Sr. No. 4, unexplained

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

unexplained investment in property (depreciable) at Sr. No. 3, unexplained investment in property (non-depreciable) at Sr. No. 4, unexplained

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

unexplained investment in property (depreciable) at Sr. No. 3, unexplained investment in property (non-depreciable) at Sr. No. 4, unexplained

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1302/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

unexplained investment in property (depreciable) at Sr. No. 3, unexplained investment in property (non-depreciable) at Sr. No. 4, unexplained

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

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

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 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

DCIT, PUNE 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 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

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

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

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

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 850/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR with Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 40A(3)

investment in unexplained expenses and freight and handling charges and made addition of Rs.1,01,50,000/- as per Para 7 of this order. 14. We find the learned CIT(A) after considering the statement of Sri Arun P. Madania, authorised person of Selection Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ashok Pande, partner of Sahil Transport Company and Ramesh Padmanabhan, Chief

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 851/PUN/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR with Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 40A(3)

investment in unexplained expenses and freight and handling charges and made addition of Rs.1,01,50,000/- as per Para 7 of this order. 14. We find the learned CIT(A) after considering the statement of Sri Arun P. Madania, authorised person of Selection Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ashok Pande, partner of Sahil Transport Company and Ramesh Padmanabhan, Chief

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

ITA 66/PUN/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR with Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 40A(3)

investment in unexplained expenses and freight and handling charges and made addition of Rs.1,01,50,000/- as per Para 7 of this order. 14. We find the learned CIT(A) after considering the statement of Sri Arun P. Madania, authorised person of Selection Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ashok Pande, partner of Sahil Transport Company and Ramesh Padmanabhan, Chief

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

ITA 73/PUN/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR with Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 40A(3)

investment in unexplained expenses and freight and handling charges and made addition of Rs.1,01,50,000/- as per Para 7 of this order. 14. We find the learned CIT(A) after considering the statement of Sri Arun P. Madania, authorised person of Selection Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ashok Pande, partner of Sahil Transport Company and Ramesh Padmanabhan, Chief

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 849/PUN/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR with Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 40A(3)

investment in unexplained expenses and freight and handling charges and made addition of Rs.1,01,50,000/- as per Para 7 of this order. 14. We find the learned CIT(A) after considering the statement of Sri Arun P. Madania, authorised person of Selection Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ashok Pande, partner of Sahil Transport Company and Ramesh Padmanabhan, Chief

DCIT CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD., PUNE

ITA 72/PUN/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR with Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 40A(3)

investment in unexplained expenses and freight and handling charges and made addition of Rs.1,01,50,000/- as per Para 7 of this order. 14. We find the learned CIT(A) after considering the statement of Sri Arun P. Madania, authorised person of Selection Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ashok Pande, partner of Sahil Transport Company and Ramesh Padmanabhan, Chief

MAHENDRA PRAKASH PAWAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Vaze and Shri Amod VazeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

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

investment. The impugned addition has been made for the unexplained payment for credit card dues and the details of the same are as under : IndusInd Bank Rs.9,73,444/- Syndicate Bank Rs.10,49,989/- ICICI Bank Rs.14,65,500/- Total Rs.21,69,933/- 8. Now from the above details filed before me, I notice that the payment of Rs.9

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-9, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kala Genset Pvt. Ltd., 392/1, Vill- Mahalunge, Tal. Khed, Pune-410501. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaack6784C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-6, Pune Dated 31.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Excess Remuneration Paid To The Directors Of The Company?” 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Rs. 55,20,630/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib(5)(I) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, When The Assessee Is Not Involved In Manufacturing Or Producing Activity But Is Only Carrying Out The Activity Of Assembling At Its Silassa Unit?”

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

Section 10ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

depreciation of Rs. 13,76,694/- on unexplained investment in WIP of Rs. 1,37,66,943/- when the Ld.CIT

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 899/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 40Section 69C

unexplained investment under section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs. 66,39,484/- 2 ITA No.899/PUN/2024

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1188/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 132(4)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

unexplained expenditure in his statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has an evidentiary value until not proven otherwise along with supporting documentary evidences. 11. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs.1,49,910/- out of agricultural income only