← All Phrases

“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

M/S. Soft Zone, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle5, Pune, Puine

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 724/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.724/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Soft Zone, V The Dcit, 84 Laxmi Road, Opp.Ganesh S. Circle-5, Pune. Peth Police Station, Ganesh Peth, Pune – 411003. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Vindo Pawar – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 16.01.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Re-Opening Of The Assessment In This Case Is Invalid & Bad In Law. The Notice U/S 148 & Consequentially, The Impugned Re-

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

assessee by treating the cash of Rs. 1,08,71,550/- deposited in ICICI Bank account during the demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition of ITA No.724/PUN/2025 [A] Rs. 1,08.71.550/- may kindly be deleted. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income

Dilip Tahlani & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 26(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.354/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dilip Tahlani & Sons Huf……………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aafhd1429P] Vs. Ito, Ward-26(2), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 81 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

scrips of M/s BSR Finance & Construction Ltd. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.11,51,668/- was made u/s 69A treating the same as unexplained cash credit. While doing so, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee

M/S. Bna Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

read with section 144B of the Act dated 23.09.2021, wherein the amount of unsecured loan of ₹4,33,00,000/ was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. 04. In the appellate proceedings also the Id. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal ... reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Finally, the Id. AO, after rejecting the contentions of the assessee, treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section

M/S. Bna Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

read with section 144B of the Act dated 23.09.2021, wherein the amount of unsecured loan of ₹4,33,00,000/ was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. 04. In the appellate proceedings also the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal ... reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Finally, the ld. AO, after rejecting the contentions of the assessee, treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 ITA Nos.154& 155/KOL/2025 M/s. BNA Commerce Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14& 2014-15 of the Act and added the same to the income

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1775/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1775/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Ito 13(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 147, Aayakar बिधम 111, Small Scale Industrial Bhavan, Churchgate, M. K. Premises Soc. Ltd. 7, Road, Mumbai, Udyog Nagar, S. V. Road, Maharashtra-400020 Goregaon, Maharashtra- 400062 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecs0035L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi
Section 131Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

form of unsecured loans from various parties during the year under consideration. Ld. AO proceeded to make an addition on account of unexplained cash credit after noting that the assessee’s director, Shri Hemant Kantilal Shah, in his statement u/s 131 of the Act recorded on 25.02.2017, had accepted that

Shiv Shankar Cargo Movers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royshiv Shankar Cargo Vs. Income Tax Officer Movers Private Limited Ware 36(2) 164, Transport Centre, 164, Transport Centre, New Sabji Mandi New Sabji Mandi Azad Pur Azad Pur Delhi – 110033 Delhi - 110033 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs3321F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

from different parties and the bank statement showing withdrawals and deposits thereafter made by him. The Ld. AO added the impugned amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act in the absence of details of the persons from whom the appellant had received freight being furnished holding

Shri Jainarayan Hariram Goel Charitable Trust, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 190/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 190/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: None (VSVS Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 147Section 250Section 68

erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO, wherein the AO erred in making addition of Rs.70,00,000 on account of unexplained cash credit us 68. The addition is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds ... submissions by the assessee, Ld. AO had made additions of Rs. 70,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits received by the assessee during the year under consideration. The matter, thereafter, had been carried by way of 3 Shri Jainarayan Hariram Goel Charitable Trust

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Gm Cables & Switches Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.32/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gm Cables & Switches Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aafcg3325C (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Rushabh Mehta, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

accommodation entry during the impugned assessment year and the Ld. AO therefore proceeded to add an amount of Rs. 66,25,000/- as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the Ld. AO also made an addition of Rs. 9,98,217/-being the interest payment

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

Since the assessee failed to justify source of the deposit of the said cash, the cash deposited so made was considered as unexplained cash credit as per provision of section 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs.94,77,000/-. 4.2 The assessee while filling the ITR also claimed ... Indian Income tax Act, 1922) Method of accounting System of accounting Assessment year 1946-47- Whether where there is an unexplained cash credit it is open to ITO to hold that it is income of assessee and no further burden lies on ITO to show that income is from

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

Since the assessee failed to justify source of the deposit of the said cash, the cash deposited so made was considered as unexplained cash credit as per provision of section 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs.94,77,000/-. 4.2 The assessee while filling the ITR also claimed ... Indian Income tax Act, 1922) Method of accounting System of accounting Assessment year 1946-47- Whether where there is an unexplained cash credit it is open to ITO to hold that it is income of assessee and no further burden lies on ITO to show that income is from

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

Since the assessee failed to justify source of the deposit of the said cash, the cash deposited so made was considered as unexplained cash credit as per provision of section 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 94,77,000/-. 4.2 The assessee while filling the ITR also ... Indian Income tax Act, 1922) Method of accounting System of accounting Assessment year 1946-47- Whether where there is an unexplained cash credit it is open to ITO to hold that it is income of assessee and no further burden lies on ITO to show that income is from

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Krishna Corporation, Ahmedabad

The appeal are Allowed

ITA 1976/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Addition of Rs. 7,76,63,888/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to provide proper confirmations about the authenticity of the claimed liabilities

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Navnirman Co Op. Bank Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1974/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1974/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Dcit Navnirman Co-Op. Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) Navnirman Bhawan V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Hdfc Bank Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabfn 2975 L (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Taxman 112 (Ahd. - Trib.) the ITAT had decided the matter which had been upheld by this Court. Accordingly, addition by way of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act was not held justifiable ..." (Copy of judgment is submitted at Appendix- H) The High Court also observed

Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir of Haradhan Halder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.314/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir Of Haradhan Halder.…………… ….……….Appellant 33, Banamanli Naskar Road, Kolkata – 700060. [Pan: Adypg8773F] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

company i.e. M/s Konark Commercial & Industries Ltd., which was registered as bogus stock company and the Assessing Officer treated Rs.11,74,082/- as unexplained cash credit towards transaction in shares of M/s Konark Commercial & Industries Ltd. and the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.11,74,082/- in the hands

Dinesh Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3009/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3009/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 68

appreciating that the aforesaid LTCG has been earned by the appellant in the normal course and should not be added as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of the Act." 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record

ITO Ward 4 (1), Patna vs. Shri Ambika Prasad Gupta, Patna

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: 09.11.2016 in frequent manner in between 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 and so, the closing cash in hand shown by the assessee as on 08.11.2016 is not correct and genuine. It is only manipulated to justify the deposit in the account during the demonetization period. 9. Failed to furnish purchase invoices in respect of payment exceeding 20,000/-. 10. Further, the assessee has failed to furnish details of stock & debtors as on 08.11.2016."

Section 250Section 68

that there is no case here for 3 Ambika Prasad Gupta treating the entire cash deposit of Rs. 1,95,71,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and thereby making the addition of Rs. 1,95,71,000/- is unjustified. The addition of Rs.1

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs. Kamla Oleo Private Limited, Barotiwala

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.897/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S Kamla Oleo Private Limited बनाम/ Parwanoo, Village Buranwala, Barotiwala Vs. Himachal Pradesh-173220. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadck-7696-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Cit(A)] Dated 25-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2019. The Issues That Arise In The Appeal Are – (I) Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68; (Ii) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Iii) Addition Of Unexplained Credit U/S 69A. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Being

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69A

Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 29-12-2019. The issues that arise in the appeal are – (i) Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A; (iii) Addition of unexplained credit u/s 69A. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records ... appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in manufacturing activities. 2. Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 2.1 It transpired that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.62 Lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during demonetization. Accordingly, the assessee

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ingenerie Technologies Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 837/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS Hema Murali Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

been reported under ‘Direct Income’ and also paid relevant taxes. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is erred in making addition towards cash deposit as unexplained cash credit u/sec.68 of the Act. The assessee further contended that, in respect of addition of Rs.43 lakhs towards alleged cash payment to M/s. Analogics Tech

Sarnath Finance Ltd., Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 68

transaction performed through banking channel, audit of Books etc; irrespective of such overwhelming evidence, the repayment of the loan has been treated as unexplained cash credit by the Assessing Officer, most unjustifiably. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.4,50,000/- as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68, which sum of money represents repayment of Loan given to Mr. Vivek Tandon by the appellant. ADDITION

Income Tax Officer (E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Vikat Educational Trust, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 394/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer M/S. Vikat Educational V. (Exemption) Trust T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C 32-A, Chandralok, Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Aliganj, Lucknow-226020. Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 2/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 394/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Vikat Educational Trust Ito (Exemption) V. 32-A, Chandralok, Aliganj, 4Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Lucknow-226020. Bhawan, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan: Aabtv6124D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shyam Lal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 115BSection 68

assessment has been made at total income of Rs 1,96,09,390 . The AO has discussed, the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act for Rs. 1,70,51,600/-. However, no discussion pertaining to balance