ANIL CHHAGANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 369/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 April 2017AY 2013-1426 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 assessee had discharged the onus cast upon them by proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The addition was not justified in the hands of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- from M/s. Encee Securities Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering it an arranged transaction or the assessee's own money.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for an unsecured loan was justified when the assessee had provided loan confirmation, bank statements, and other necessary documents.

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(9)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, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Hearing: 11/04/2017

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.

Anil Chhaganlal Jain Anil Chhaganlal Jain(HUF)

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →