Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sukumar Solvent (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 200 ITD 614 (Kol (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Excess stock-Survey-Addition is restricted only to profit element of stock.[S.133A]

Hari Chand v. ITO (2023) 155 taxmann.com 492/ 105 ITR 610 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Difference between sale consideration shown in registered deed and that deposited in bank account-Appeal arising out of lack of verification-Matter remitted to Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo.

Hira Lal Kadlabju v. Asst. CIT (2023)104 ITR 608 (Amritsar)(Trib) Anish Bhan v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 608 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Ownership of cash found in premises-Protective and substantive assessment pending for determination-Matter remitted to Assessing Officer.[S. 132]

Eagle Fleet Services vs. Asst. CIT (2023) 105 ITR 78(SN) (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Demonetisation-Cash deposits of specified bank notes during demonetisation period-AO accepting explanation of assessee that receipts from business-however, treating the deposits as unexplained solely on the ground that notes ceased to be legal tender-Unjustified.[S. 132]

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S. 69A : Unexplained money-Compensation on land acquisition-Received on husband’s bank account-Withdrawn from and deposited in assessee’s bank account-No material to prove that money utilised for other purpose-Addition is deleted.[S. 68]

Tara Kabra v. DCIT, CC-1(3) (Mum)(Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Search-Source of the Jewellery found during the Search/Seizure Operation-Benefit of instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 issued by CBDT.[S. 132]

Anoop Gopikishan Jaju v. Asst. CIT (2023) 105 ITR 22 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Cash paid to the developer for purchase of land-during the course of survey action developer accepted the receipt of on money and details of the same was provided-in the absence of providing the source, the AO is justified in treating the payment as income from undisclosed sources.

Abbasali Chinikamwalla v. ITO, (Mum)(Trib.) (UR)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Demonetisation-Cash withdrawal-Only source of income is pension-Addition is deleted. [S. 68]

Govind Gidomal Lulla v. ITO (Mum)(Trib.) (UR)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Excess Stock found during course of Survey-Taxable as business income and not as undisclosed income .[S.28(i) 115BBE,133A]

Pawan Green Channels Pvt. Ltd. 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. [S. 68]