ITO WD 1(3), THANE vs. BIPIN RAMJI KATIRA (HUF), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1429/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 November 2015AY 2006-075 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the HUF had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits from its members. For the cash credit, the Tribunal agreed that the HUF could not be penalized for the creditor's alleged lack of capacity, especially when the creditor's identity and transaction genuineness were not disputed.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for unexplained cash deposits and cash credits. The cash deposits were from the HUF members, and the cash credit was a loan from a third party, Manisha Katira.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits from HUF members and a loan from a third party are sufficiently explained by the assessee, and if not, whether the AO can make additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri G S Pannu, AM & Shri Sanjay Garg, JM

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra P Yadav
For Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratanaparkhi
Hearing: 05.08.2015Pronounced: 30.11.2015

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ‘F’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →