SANJAY VRAJLAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1276/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2023AY 2006-20075 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO incorrectly added deposits pertaining to other assessment years and unexplained items. It restored the issues of credit card loan and market creation limited deposit to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added the entire bank deposit of Rs. 97,69,197/- to the assessee's income under Section 68 for AY 2006-07 due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) deleted a portion but confirmed the rest.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire bank deposits were correctly added to the income under Section 68, and if deposits pertaining to other assessment years and unexplained items were rightly included.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 13.07.2023Pronounced: 26.07.2023

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 3. 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.

\

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →