SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was misplaced as the assessee had provided details of members and the nature of transactions. The mere fact that demonetised notes were accepted by the society did not automatically make the credits unexplained.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a credit co-operative society, deposited demonetised currency notes totaling Rs. 13,69,500/- during the demonetisation period. The assessee claimed these deposits represented loan repayments and other collections from its members.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits made in demonetised notes by a co-operative society during the demonetisation period can be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, and if the society was prohibited from accepting such notes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd.44 citing84 Taxmann 146 · 1996 · HC
- Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO34 citing138 Taxmann.com 141 · 2022 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the office of the Commissioner of Income – Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT – 4, Chennai dated 21.10.2025 for the assessment year 2017-
The only issue raised by the assessee is that the revenue authority erred in taxing the cash deposit made in demonetised note under section 68 of the Act.
The relevant facts are that the assessee society during the demonetisation (9th November 2016 to 31st December 2016) made cash deposit for a sum of Rs. 27,12,500/- out of which a sum of Rs.13,69,500/- was in spec
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. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026