This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposited in the bank-Explanation was not satisfactory-Addition was justified-Income from undisclosed source-Stock valuation-Suppression of stock-Addition was deleted. [S. 69, 145]

Kuldeep Kumar v. ITO (2022) 213 DTR 201/217 TTJ 632(Asr)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposited in Bank account-Withdrawal from bank-Proper explanation was furnished-Addition was deleted.

Krishna Agarwal (Smt) v. ITO (2022) 215 TTJ 245 / 213 DTR 74 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposit in bank-Demonetisation period-Sale of flat-Addition was deleted.

Karishma Sharma (Ms.) v. ITO(IT) (2022) 98 ITR 65 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Survey-Undervaluation of stocks-Reconciliation statement filed-Addition is not justified. [S. 133A]

Dy. CIT v. Plasto Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2022)95 ITR 93 / 218 TTJ 1 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Difference between books of account and Valuation Report-Addition was deleted. [S. 142A]

VRL Logistics Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)95 ITR 221 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Amount received from director-Officer should have verified the return of the director-Source of funds are explained-Addition was deleted. [S. 147, 148]

Astral Properties and Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (2022)97 ITR 210 (SMC) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investment-Stock figures and cash position different in statement furnished to the bank and in book of accounts-Statement given to third party not admissible as evidence-CIT(A) is justified in deleting additions. [133(6)]

ITO v. Ramesh Chand (2022)97 ITR 421 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Burden of proof on department-Documents impounded in the course of survey-Sale consideration was accepted in the assessment of seller-Addition is not justified. [S.115BBE, 133]

Vatika Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 100 ITR 23 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Income from undisclosed sources-Notice returned unserved with the remarks “Not found” or “Left”-Payments were though account payee cheques-tax was deducted at source-Addition is not justified. [S. 133(6)]

Dy. CIT v. Global Wool Alliance Pvt. Ltd. (2022)100 ITR 12 (SN) (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital-Share premium-Deletion of addition is affirmed.

Dy. CIT v. BDR Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. (2022) 220 TTJ 921 / (2023) 221 DTR 394/199 ITD 757 (Delhi)(Trib)