GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the credit entry cannot be treated as the income of the assessee firm as the partner had affirmed the infusion and the penalty proceedings for violating Section 269SS were dropped. The addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a firm, received a substantial cash infusion from a partner. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained income under Section 68, while the partner's assessment for the same amount was quashed due to procedural defects.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash infusion from a partner into the firm's current account can be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 when the partner has affirmed the transaction and penalty proceedings for related violations were dropped?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 269SS,Section 271D,Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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. Metachem Industries137 citing245 ITR 160 · 2000 · HC
- CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.62 citing285 ITR 221 · 2006 · HC
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. MJ. & P. Ginning & Pressing Factory5 citing60 ITR 95 · 1966 · SC
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised 6 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer und
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