WAINGANGA SUGAR & POWER LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4, NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was contradictory and lacked proper inquiry, especially concerning the existence of M/s. Inex Infotech Pvt. Ltd. It also noted that the proviso to Section 68, which requires explaining the source of the source, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
What were the facts?
The assessee company received Rs. 55,00,000/- from M/s. Inex Infotech Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as an unexplained cash credit, reopening the assessment based on information that M/s. Inex Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was a shell company providing accommodation entries.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified, considering the evidence presented by the assessee and the applicability of legal precedents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 09/09/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the assessment order dated 31.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the ACIT, Circle-4, Nagpur, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- made by the Ld.AO as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act without giving proper opportunity of hearing and also not considered the information provided in response to the notice u/s.
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
