M/S. NAVAJYOTHI TRUST,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, MYSURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) accepted the cash receipts as sale proceeds but made additions based on demonetized notes. It held that adding these deposits under Section 68 would amount to double taxation if sales were already offered for income.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust deposited Rs. 14,48,000 in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained cash credit, while the assessee claimed it was from available cash balance and sale proceeds.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits made in demonetized notes, representing sale proceeds already offered for taxation, can be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, leading to double taxation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Gundathur Thimmappa & Sons. v. CIT57 citing70 ITR 70 · 1968 · HC
- CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd.44 citing84 Taxmann 146 · 1996 · HC
- Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. CIT (7 citing218 Taxmann 360 · 2013
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.11.2021. The assessee has raised the main grounds as follows:-
The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. M/s. Navajyothi Trust, Mysuru 2. Without prejudice to the additional grounds raised in the additional grounds of appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.14,48,000
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 →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
