DYNAMIC TRANSMISSION LTD.,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , ROHTAK

ITA 328/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 March 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO regarding cash credit and disallowed interest on unsecured loans. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 41(1) and disallowed expenses under Section 37(1), finding the AO's additions to be uncalled for.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, which was selected for scrutiny due to abnormal cash deposits during demonetization, lower disallowance under Section 40A(7), and discrepancies in customs duty paid. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of cash credit, disallowed interest on unsecured loans, treated old credits as income, and disallowed business expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made by the AO concerning cash credits, disallowed interest, and other expenses, and whether the admission of additional evidence was proper.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 41(1),Section 37(1),Section 40A(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate, Shri V Rajakumar. Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.09.2025

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee and Revenue has filed cross appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 23.11.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 26.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,62,59,560/-. The return was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reasons as under :- (a) Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demo

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →