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.

58 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,311Mumbai1,111Chennai425Bangalore368Jaipur343Hyderabad291Kolkata196Cochin192Chandigarh189Ahmedabad186Pune130Indore127Karnataka110Visakhapatnam109Amritsar78Surat58Lucknow56Nagpur45Raipur43Calcutta40Cuttack39Telangana37Rajkot34Guwahati31Agra29Ranchi12Jodhpur11Patna11SC10Allahabad10Varanasi8Rajasthan7Dehradun5Jabalpur5Kerala2Orissa1J&K1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26389Section 143(3)47Addition to Income42Cash Deposit30Section 14727Section 6825Section 54F23Section 254(1)21Section 271(1)(c)20Section 69A

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) on the addition of aforesaid submission, Ld. AR for the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside / quash the impugned order of ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd 13. On the other hand

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

19
House Property15
Penalty15

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) on the addition of aforesaid submission, Ld. AR for the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside / quash the impugned order of ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd 13. On the other hand

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 105/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234BSection 271A

House Property, Profit and Gains from Business and Profession, Short Term Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. The assessee`s case was manually selected for scrutiny under compulsory criteria through approval of Pr. CIT-2, Surat vide his letter No. SRT/Pr. CIT-2/ITO(HQ)- 2/Scrutiny/Manual Selection/2018-19 dated 28.09.2018 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

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 373/SRT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Samir Shah
Section 1Section 133(6)Section 68

deposits represented (i) cash received from buyers of flats/shops towards service tax at the cash received from buyers of flats/shops towards service tax at the cash received from buyers of flats/shops towards service tax at the time of execution of sale/conveyance deeds, and (ii) cash withdrawn time of execution of sale/conveyance deeds, and (ii) cash withdrawn time of execution

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

cash deposits. Creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. 9 Irshad The person has neither been found on Gyan Enterprise 3,72,86,490 Rs.3,72,202 Khan inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Ruhi Industries 2,88,55,785/- (Loan- Further, creditworthiness & genuineness 3,39,000 + of transactions are also not proved. Interest- Several features of Accommodation 33,202) entry providers

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

ITA 69/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property merely on presumption basis without providing any evidence to assume the contrary. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned C1T(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant and confirming the addition on presumptions, without providing any opportunity for rebuttal of allegations made

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ASRIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

ITA 337/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property merely on presumption basis without providing any evidence to assume the contrary. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned C1T(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant and confirming the addition on presumptions, without providing any opportunity for rebuttal of allegations made

RAVI SHANKAR HARI MALPANI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

ITA 926/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.926/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Vs. The Acit, 1009/10, Ambaji Market, Near Kamela Circle – 1(2), Darwaja, Salabatpura, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afspm7945K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

deposit of Rs.35,64,800/- was added u/s 69A of the Act because assessee failed to explain the source of said cash and he failed to substantiate the same with cogent reasons and documentary evidence. The AO also added Rs.14,689/- being excess standard deduction claimed from income from house property

SHRI HARESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL MAHADEVWALA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

house property and other sources in all assessment years, which has not been earned by assessee in the form of cash as apparent from the cash book furnished by assessee since 01/04/2011. There is no scope of cash generation from their earning activities. The source of cash deposit

HASMUKH KANJIBHAI TADHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), SURAT

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

ITA 19/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani, Vs. The Ito, 170, Vaikunth Dham Society, Ward – 3(3)(3), Laxmikant Ashram Road, Surat Katargam, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafpt1257K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 69A

house property and also has income from business and profession to the tune of Rs.10,70,000/-, as a remuneration received from Shivam Polishing LLP. The assessee also received profit from Shivam Polishing LLP to the tune of Rs.12,73,620/-. The assessee also submitted the detail of cash deposited

SMT. RENUKABEN UMEDSING PARMAR,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NAVSARI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2493/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2493/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Old Patel Street, . Ward-3, Navsari At & P.O.Kukeri, Taluka – Chikhli, District - Navsari – 396 321. [Pan: Aiopp 5256 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Tarun Ghia – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 69Section 69A

house property and income from salary. No finding was given by the lower authorities of such documentary evidence. We have noted that agricultural income and salary income of assessee’s husband is not disputed by the Revenue. Admittedly, the bank account no. 597 in Bank of Baroda, wherein the impugned cash deposit

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 514/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposit. Moreover, no such objection was raised either before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I do not find any justification in raising the grounds of appeal straightway before the Tribunal. In the result, grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal are dismissed. 17. Grounds No. 4 and 5 of the appeal relates

SINGAPALLI RAJGOPAL RAO ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 111/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Singapalli Rajgopal Rao Income Tax Officer 34/A Sundernagar, Udhna- Vs. Ward No.3(2)(8), Surat Navsari Road, Bhestan, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpr 0192 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Tinish Mody, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 27/01/2025 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

cash of Rs.6,00,000/- on 26.09.2016 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.10.2016 from his SB account with SBI. He had also withdrawn Rs.1,96,000/- between 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016. These amounts were withdrawn for purchase of house but since the purchase did not materialize, the amount was re-deposited in his bank account. The assessee also relied on some

VIJAY RAMSINGH GOYAL,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT., SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 591/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

deposit was on account of sale of agricultural land of Rs. 9.70 lacs in cash. Copy of sale deed executed during relevant period was furnished. The said property was in the form of agricultural land situated in a small village and was not covered under capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee was not under obligation

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70,50,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act. Regarding the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account of unexplained cash ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 deposit

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70,50,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act. Regarding the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account of unexplained cash ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 deposit

THE ITO, (INTL. TAXN.), SURAT vs. SHRI NITIN HIRABHAI JARIWALA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2861/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2861/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Nitin Hirabhai Jariwala, (International Taxation), Surat. 5/519, Ground Floor, A-19, Trikamnagar Society, L H Road, Surat – 395 006. [Pan: Albpj 2214 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Nitin Gheewala – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri B.P.K.Panda – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.02.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of 1. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 12.08.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Intl. Taxn.), Surat (In Short “The Ao” ) Under Section 143 (3) Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 131Section 143Section 69

deposited in bank account. The AO also observed that the assessee had along with the co-owners purchased two agricultural lands for Rs.2.75 crore and Rs.2.38 crore as per the sale deeds for which various cheques have been issued as mentioned in the assessment order. In view of these facts, the AO was of the view that the 4. amount

HIREN ASHOKKUMAR BARDOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

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

ITA 27/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Hiren Ashokkumar Bardoliya Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(2), बनाम/ Flat No.L/801, Rameshwaram Surat, Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Vs. Green Opp. D-Mart, Bamroli, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Althan Road, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Apxpb 4857 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

house property and income from other sources during the year under consideration. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished details, viz., copy of ROI filed for AY 2017-18, computation of income, bank statements and credit card statements. In addition to this, the assessee had also furnished a statement showing the cash deposit

MS. SHILPA MAYANK PARIKH,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1212/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, A-2, Atithi Bungalow, Revaba Bharuch Town Ship, Bharuch-392001 [Pan: Aespp 7558 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shailesh J. Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

Section 68Section 69

House Property, Capital Gain and income from other sources. The assessee filed her return of income on 02-11-2010 declaring total income of Rs.6,29,275/-. The AO found that the assessee has taken loan from seven parties amounting to Rs.4,96,500/-. The reason for making addition of Rs.4,96,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act have been

RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 352/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M JAGASETH, CAFor Respondent: Shri AJAY UKE, SR. DR
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period treating the same as alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the 1.T. Act, and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner