Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Jagjit Singh v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 298 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposit during demonetization-Cash from sundry creditors-Not in violation of receiving specified bank notes-Failure by assessee to explain source-Matter Remanded.

Shail Jayesh Shah v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 38 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash available in old demonetised currency-Withdrawal from bank upto November 8, 2016-Disallowance to that extent not sustainable-Balance disallowance of balance cash proper.

Santosh v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 32 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Compensation on land acquisition-Received on husband’s bank account-withdrawn from and deposited in assessee’s bank account-No material to prove that money utilised for other purpose-Additions to be deleted.

Pujala Mahesh Babu v. Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 458 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 69 : Un explained investments-Search and seizure-Undisclosed income-Seized documents showing receipts and payments-Assessee in real estate business-Cannot be identified whether money used for purchase of land or loan-Profit at 10% to meet end of justice-Seized documents showing receipts and payments-Additions cannot be made on receipts and payments both-Agricultural Income-No evidence of agricultural activity-Receipt cannot be treated as sale of agricultural property-Cash receipts-Declared in original return-Cannot be taxed again in absence of contrary materials. [S. 132]

Pawan Green Channels Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 19 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Profits from sale of land-Contention that assessee only acted as aggregator and seller offered income as tax-AO to examine contention of the assessee-Matter remanded

Asst. CIT (IT) v. Vijaykumar Vasantbhai Patel (2023)101 ITR 1 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Loan received in USD and deposited in Indian bank account-Investment on same day in mutual funds-Source of funds outside India not taxable in India-CIT(A)’s direction to obtain certified true copies of source of income-Justified.

Pujala Mahesh Babu v.Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 458 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Unexplained expenditure-Additions on the basis of seized documents-Cannot explain source-Amount not pertaining to assessment year-Addition not sustainable-Share of assessee at 30% as per seized documents-Addition to that extent only.

Pujala Mahesh Babu v. Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 458 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Investment in land-Unable to explain source of investment-Merely stating sufficient funds does not discharge onus-No Cash flow statement to show fund availability-Assessee not maintaining book of accounts.

ITO (IT) v. Shehnaz Nurdin Ajania (Smt.) (2023)101 ITR 618 (Surat) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Appeal to CIT(A)-Additional evidence-Admission-No proof of source of funds for purchase of mutual funds-Deletion of addition by CIT(A) on the basis of additional evidence-No recording of reasons-No opportunity to A.O. to verify submission-Matter remanded. [R. 46A]

Umananda Rice Mill Ltd. v.Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 140 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Survey-Discrepancies in stocks-Disclosed during survey duly incorporated in books of accounts of assessee-AO accepted and allowed credit-Addition is deleted.[S.133A]