M/S. AKSHAY ECO ENERGY CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the genuineness of the share capital and other related documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the genuineness of share capital introduced by the assessee and the AO's addition based on Section 68. The tribunal sought further verification of these aspects.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 101/JP/2020
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 101/JP/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 cuke M/s Akshay Eco Energy Corporation I.T.O. Vs. Private Limited, Ward 7(3), C/o-C L Yadav & Associates, Jaipur. 320, City Center, S.C. Road, Jaipur- 302001. PAN No.: AALCA 0923 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.L. Yadav (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/10/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 08/11/2019 for the A.Y. 2014-15, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. AO of making addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 44,00,000/-. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 44,00,000/-.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in validating the action of the ld. A.O. where the ld. A.O. has
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026