PARAM GOLD,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2467/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 January 2024Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were unjustified in treating the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal found that the stock movement and purchases were not in doubt, and the nature and source of the cash credit were explained as sale proceeds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in gold and jewellery, deposited Rs. 5,72,90,000/- in Specified Bank Notes during the demonetization period. The assessee claimed these deposits were from cash sales of gold in October 2016.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization, claimed to be from cash sales, could be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed
Hearing: 08/12/2023Pronounced: 16/01/2024

आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

A.Y. 2017-18 Param Gold

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →