CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji

42 Taxmann.com 251High Court2014#550 most cited

What is CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji authority for?

When the Department has accepted the fact of repayment of a loan by the assessee, additions under Section 68 for unexplained credits are not sustainable in law.

174

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · loan repayment accepted · addition not sustainable · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source

Also reported as

26 SOT 541

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 115BBESection 131Section 250

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorshell companyaddition under section 68beyond four yearsaddition u/s 68material facts necessary for assessmentborrowed satisfactionshare application moneygenuineness of the transactionaccommodation entrysection 41(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2225/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 2224 & 2225/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Prolife Industries Ltd. The ITO 213, GIDC, Panoli, Ward-3(1)(1), Ankleshwar Vs Ahmedabad Gujarat-394116 PAN: AAACR9172R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Kunal Shangvi, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 08 -04-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals are filed by the Assessee as…

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2224/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 2224 & 2225/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Prolife Industries Ltd. The ITO 213, GIDC, Panoli, Ward-3(1)(1), Ankleshwar Vs Ahmedabad Gujarat-394116 PAN: AAACR9172R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Kunal Shangvi, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 08 -04-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals are filed by the Assessee as…

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER SN ITA/IT(SS)A No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 IT(SS)A No. 2015-16 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 73/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, R.S. 380, Vejalpur Road, Vadodara Panchmahal, Godhra-389001 [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 2 IT(SS)A No. 2016-17 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 74/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, Panchmahal, Godhra Vadodara [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 3 IT(SS)A No. 2017-18 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 75/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, Panchmahal, Godhra Vadodara [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 4 IT(SS)A No. 2018-19 ACI…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER SN ITA/IT(SS)A No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 IT(SS)A No. 2015-16 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 73/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, R.S. 380, Vejalpur Road, Vadodara Panchmahal, Godhra-389001 [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 2 IT(SS)A No. 2016-17 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 74/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, Panchmahal, Godhra Vadodara [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 3 IT(SS)A No. 2017-18 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 75/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, Panchmahal, Godhra Vadodara [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 4 IT(SS)A No. 2018-19 ACI…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER SN ITA/IT(SS)A No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 IT(SS)A No. 2015-16 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 73/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, R.S. 380, Vejalpur Road, Vadodara Panchmahal, Godhra-389001 [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 2 IT(SS)A No. 2016-17 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 74/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, Panchmahal, Godhra Vadodara [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 3 IT(SS)A No. 2017-18 ACIT, HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 75/Ahd/2025 Central Circle-2, Panchmahal, Godhra Vadodara [PAN : AACCH 0966 K] 4 IT(SS)A No. 2018-19 ACI…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 860/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member ITA Nos: 682, 859 & 860/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Crystal Ceramics The DCIT Industries Limited Central Circle-1(1), 338/9 Rajpark Society, Vs Ahmedabad B/H Samrudhhi Tenament Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443 Gujarat PAN: AADCC2915L The DCIT Vs Crystal Ceramics Central Circle-1(1), Industries Limited Ahmedabad 338/9 Rajpark Society, B/H Samrudhhi Tenament Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443 (Appellant) Gujarat PAN: AADCC2915L (Respondent) Assessee…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 859/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member ITA Nos: 682, 859 & 860/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Crystal Ceramics The DCIT Industries Limited Central Circle-1(1), 338/9 Rajpark Society, Vs Ahmedabad B/H Samrudhhi Tenament Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443 Gujarat PAN: AADCC2915L The DCIT Vs Crystal Ceramics Central Circle-1(1), Industries Limited Ahmedabad 338/9 Rajpark Society, B/H Samrudhhi Tenament Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443 (Appellant) Gujarat PAN: AADCC2915L (Respondent) Assessee…

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 682/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member ITA Nos: 682, 859 & 860/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Crystal Ceramics The DCIT Industries Limited Central Circle-1(1), 338/9 Rajpark Society, Vs Ahmedabad B/H Samrudhhi Tenament Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443 Gujarat PAN: AADCC2915L The DCIT Vs Crystal Ceramics Central Circle-1(1), Industries Limited Ahmedabad 338/9 Rajpark Society, B/H Samrudhhi Tenament Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443 (Appellant) Gujarat PAN: AADCC2915L (Respondent) Assessee…

SURAT GOODS TRANSPORT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7556/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 68

…O [ITA No. 1328/Mum/2012] dated 14.02.2014 11 Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT V. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd [164 Taxmann.com 162] 12 Decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekar Narsangji [42 Taxmann.com 251] 8. We find that the issue herein is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, on account of granting of approval by an authority specified in Clause-(i) of section 151 instead of the specified authority having authority to grant such sanction in a case, where assessment was reopened after three years from the end of relevant AY i.e. th…

BHAVANA SURESH CHAUHAN,BORIVALI WEST vs. WARD42(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan ITO, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [PAN No. ADIPC1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Surji Chheda, CA Revenue by Shri B. Laxmikanth, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeal 12.11.2025 Date of hearing 29.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;…

VALOUR AUTOPACK,GOR KHIJADIYA, MORBI GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.271/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Valour Autopack The PR. CIT-1, बनाम Survey No. 16P4, At Gorkhijadiya, Rajkot Vs. Nexa Paper LLP Morbi (Gujarat) -363641 PAN No.: AAQFV4832K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Hardik Vora, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" त…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2530/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, DCIT, central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1st Floor, Room No. 1923, 19th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 PAN: AAAFA 2341 Q Appellant / assessee Respondent / Revenue DCIT, central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1st Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Co…

ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2504/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, DCIT, central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1st Floor, Room No. 1923, 19th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 PAN: AAAFA 2341 Q Appellant / assessee Respondent / Revenue DCIT, central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1st Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Co…

NIDHI RANI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…This fact is further established from the funds flow statement prepared for peak balance, as discussed above. 24. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of PCIT vs Ojas Tarmake (P).Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 75, CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed by the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H). 25. In view of the abo…

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…wake of peculiar facts subsisting in the present case, the additions towards unexplained credit under s. 68 and estimated addition under s. 69C is wholly unjustified. 9.5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT MahavirCrimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT…

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…wake of peculiar facts subsisting in the present case, the additions towards unexplained credit under s. 68 and estimated addition under s. 69C is wholly unjustified. 9.5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT MahavirCrimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT…

ORANGE CITY RECREATION RESORT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5698/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 5698/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) Orange City Recreation v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Resort Pvt. Ltd. बनाम 7(3)(1) 132, Blue Rose Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Premises, Near Metro Mall, Road, Mumbai – 400 020, Western Express Highway, Maharashtra Borivali (East) Mumbai – 400 066, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACO3066H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Respondent by : Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.11.2025…

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…wake of peculiar facts subsisting in the present case, the additions towards unexplained credit under s. 68 and estimated addition under s. 69C is wholly unjustified. 9.5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the lig…

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…wake of peculiar facts subsisting in the present case, the additions towards unexplained credit under s. 68 and estimated addition under s. 69C is wholly unjustified. 9.5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the lig…

DELIGHT PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…wake of peculiar facts subsisting in the present case, the additions towards unexplained credit under s. 68 and estimated addition under s. 69C is wholly unjustified. 9.5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji, 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the lig…

Showing 1–20 of 174 · Page 1 of 9

...