“unexplained cash credit”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 687,118 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained cash credit is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained cash credit

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court

897

citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court

696

citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court

581

citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court

570

citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court

525

citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court

525

citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

Judgments citing unexplained cash credit

Trikkalangode Vanitha Cooperative Society Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 958/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thrikkalangode Vanitha Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Thrikkalangode, Malapuram 676123 [Pan: Aafat1812K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1., Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. No Regular

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

made in the account maintained with Manjari Co-operative Urban bank Ltd. as unexplained money of the appellant. Also made addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 26,03,873/- and interest income of Rs. 3,62,465/- for the failure of the assessee to explain and substantiate the source

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

ITA 691/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.68 of the Act as under:- Return of income Rs.14,26,761/- Add: Addition u/s 68 on account of Unexplained cash credit Assessed income Assessed income U/s 288A Rs.3,43,59,000/- Rs.3,57,85,761/- Rs.3,57,85,761/- 2.24 That the aforesaid assessment order ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,43,59,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the test of human probabilities as laid down by the Apex Court

Skyhigh Infraprojects Private Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-6(1), Lucknow

ITA 242/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

upholding the addition of Rs.1,67,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating unsecured loans received from various parties as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. 2. BECAUSE the Id. “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition

Randheer Singh, Faizabad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Randheer Singh V. The Assessment Unit Nara Pura Bazar Income Tax Department Faizabad Nfac, Delhi Tan/Pan:Gpfps1546D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 69A

respect of withdrawals on behalf of the customers of bank which has been wrongly made by Id. A.O. as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A resulting of the I.T.Act, 1961 and in levy of tax u/s 115BBE consequential addition of Rs.1,07,32,410 is not justified. ITA No.218/LKW/2025 Page

Arvind Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(1), Lucknow-New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Singh V. The Ito-2(1) 3001, Heritage Apartment Lucknow-New Park Road, Hazratganj Lucknow Tan/Pan:Anmps6686H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

assessee failed to offer satisfactory explanation and furnish necessary documents with regard to the aforementioned cash credits, the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credits and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ... case and is not legal. 2. The authorities below have wrongly treated the sale proceeds amounting to Rs.99,70,000/-as unexplained cash credits. 3. Any other ground that may be taken up with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Bench. 5.0 None was present for the assessee when

Satya Kumar Darbari, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Satya Kumar Darbari V. The Dcit 381, Rajendra Nagar Range 4 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Therefore, the AO treated the remaining credit entries, amounting to Rs.1,03,75,000/- (Rs.1,83,75,000 – Rs.80,00,000) as the unexplained cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

Zahir Iqbal Laliwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 394/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R Senthil Kumarzahir Iqbal Laliwala, The Assistant Vs. Aman, Opp. Paras Baug Soc. Commissioner Of Income B/H. Tagore Hall, Tax, Paldi, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007. Ahmedabad. [Pan :Aafpl5516 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Dated 26.07.2023, For The Assessment Year 2011–12, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Not Only Confirmed The Addition Of ₹1,26,89,915/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act, But Also Enhanced The Same To ₹2,60,80,590/- Based On The Income Reflected In Form No. 26As.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68

well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,89,915/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 based on credit entries in the bank account. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Aswad Jaidas Patil, Pezari Post Poynad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

such remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition of Rs.3,68,76,096/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act. He, however, restricted the addition on account of provision for routine expenses to Rs.2,83,000/-, restricted the addition ... No.462/PUN/2024: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, with regard to the addition of Rs.3,68,76,096/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s.69A, the ld. CIT(A) erred in fact by simply relying on the remand report submitted by the AO, without verification of the same

Aswad Jaidas Patil, Raigad vs. Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

Channarayapatna Nanjappa Chandregowda, Hassan vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Hassan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2371/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

submitted any explanations for the source of the cash deposits and therefore the AO had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, the AO held that the total investment made by the assessee on the immovable property as unexplained investment

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3), Mumbai

ITA 61/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora Ito Ward 27(3)(2) House No. 4E, Asalfa Bandra Kurla Near Ghatkopar W Vs. Complex, Bandra E Mumbai-400 084. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amgpa0936K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Paranjpe

Section 271(1)(c)

there was no expense from the appellant. Accordingly, assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 28,40,000/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit. While completing the assessment the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Then the Ld. AO issued a show

Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3628/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain

Section 148

Chennai has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,00,187/ addition of Rs.8,00,187/- in respect of unexplained cash of unexplained cash credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received credits, though they were the "Professional Fees" received during ... source of the credits, the Assessing Officer has rightly the source of the credits, the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed the same as unexplained cash credits. Accordingly assessed the same as unexplained cash credits. Accordingly assessed the same as unexplained cash credits. Accordingly the relevant Grounds are dismissed. the relevant

Visagar Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3386/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Darshana BhaiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

entries by way of transactions done in the scrip PMC Fincorp Limited alleged to be a penny scrip thereby making an addition as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the said addition made by the ld. AO before

Masterji & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2066/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

Learned CIT(A) errd in confirming addition of Rs. 24,47,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the necessary evidences are filed and submissions were made during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) which justified the cash deposits ... fully explained.” “The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 34,31,530/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the necessary evidences are filed and submissions were made during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) which justified

Masterji & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2065/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 1113/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit 42(1)(1), Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, I 702, Pranay Nagar Society, Ram Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mandir Extn Road, Vazira Naka, Mumbai-400051. Borivali West, Mumbai-400091. Pan No. Aaepg 3578 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

made of Rs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Satyendra Kumar Triloknath 2 Goyal ITA No. 1113/MUM/2025 1,75,00,000/ 1,75,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the AO in respect of unsecured loans taken ... firstly for unsecured loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/ for unsecured loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- held as unexplained cash held as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, secondly, the loans were held as credit u/s 68 of the Act, secondly, the loans were held as credit

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None

Section 68

Section 68 of the 27.78 crores under Section 68 of the Act, treating the said amount as Act, treating the said amount as unexplained cash credit. unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the share trading loss of Assessing Officer also disallowed the share trading loss of Assessing Officer ... shares (including share amount received on allotment of its shares (including share amount received on allotment of its shares (including share premium), as unexplained cash credit and consequently adding the premium), as unexplained cash credit and consequently adding the premium), as unexplained cash credit and consequently adding the same

DCIT Circle- 43(1), New Delhi vs. Manish Dhawan, Derawal Nagar, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3254/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

accepted the books of account and entries in the books of account are matched, no case for making addition of unexplained cash credit is made out. We find that in such circumstances the coordinate Bench in case of DCIT vs. Manuvel Malabar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1011/Del/2022, order dated

DCIT, Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2502/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

unsecured loans of 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.2360/Del/2023; 2764 to 2768/Del/2022; ITA Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Rs.4,05,00,000/- treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68, unexplained receipts, non-deduction of TDS, cash payments disallowances; involving varying sums, respectively. The Assessing Officer thus enhanced the assessee ... assessee preferred its appeal before the learned CIT(A) which stands partly accepted to the extent that the above section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.2,90,00,000/- has been deleted and all other assessment findings have been confirmed. It is in this factual backdrop that both

Shalimar Corp Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2360/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285