← 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

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

properly, it is pertinent to quote here the provisions of section 68 of the Act that are squarely applicable in this case: "Section68:Unexplained cash credit "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about ... cheque, is not sufficient - Addition under Section 68 upheld. 8.22 There is nothing in law which prevents Assessing Officer in taxing both unexplained cash credit and business income estimated. It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is from a source which

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2035/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Surendra Mangaldas Shah, Huf The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) G/7, Amola Chambers Vs Ahmedabad. Cg Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aachs 6590 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By : Adjournment Application Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Adjournment Application
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

notices. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition by AO of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming action of AO to hold that failure

Sima Dhara, Kismat Apurbapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Chinsurah

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1225/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sima Dhara………………………...……………………………..….……….Appellant Kismat Apurbapur, Natun Bazar, Singur, Hooghly, W.B. – 712409. [Pan: Admpd1772F] Vs. Ito, Chinsurah……….....……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Susanta Kr. Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.09.2023 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Running A Petrol Pump Under The Proprietorship Concern Of M/S Freedom Fighter Service Station. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.34,09,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15.10.2019 By

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

while passing the appellate order has notably converted the basis of addition of Rs.94,86,000/- from section 68 (unexplained cash credit) to section 69A (unexplained money) without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to respond in this respect. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Kamatchipuram Vellingiri Jayaraman, Coimbatore

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. D.Komali Krishna, CITFor Respondent: Mr.Venkatswami, ITP &
Section 147Section 148

under:- Income returned u/s 148 (-) 4,48,718/- Add: Rs. 49,40,946/- Disallowance of other expenses and development charges u/s 37(1) Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 Rs. 2,93,50,000/- Total income Rs. 3,38,42,228/- 6. Aggrieved, assessee challenged the order of assessment ... made additions on account of other expenses and development charges u/s 37(1) of the Act and addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits. 14. Therefore, in the light of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court judgments referred supra, we find that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing

ACIT 4 2 1, Mumbai City vs. Iifl Securities, Mumbai City

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 737/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is right in holding that the Assessing Officer's findings regarding unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were substantiate? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act based on information received from the Investigation Wing. The AO made three major additions to the appellant's income: 1. Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68: Rs. 6,27,34,000 alleged to have been routed through shell companies providing accommodation entries. The AO concluded that the appellant

ACIT-4 2 1, Mum vs. Iifl Securities Ltd, Mumbai City

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 722/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is right in holding that the Assessing Officer's findings regarding unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were substantiate? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act based on information received from the Investigation Wing. The AO made three major additions to the appellant's income: 1. Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68: Rs. 6,27,34,000 alleged to have been routed through shell companies providing accommodation entries. The AO concluded that the appellant

Gordhanram Bagtaram Devasi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 1649/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gordhanram Bagtaram Devasi I.T.O. Ward (3)(2), Kalyan 226 Globle Market Opp Man Market 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Sahara Shoppee Gas, Saboo Vs. Murbad Road, Siddique Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400601 Pan No. Arupd 6722 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 44Section 44ASection 68

Therefore, in absence of any submission explaining source of the cash deposit, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 34,08,195/- as unexplained cash credit in terms of Sec. 68 of the Act. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee did not comply and therefore

Trans Ocean Agency, J.B. Nagar Andheri(West) vs. Income Tax Officer, 33(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 1297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek JainFor Respondent: 16.04.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68

r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The ld. AO further made an addition of Rs. 26,39,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit being unsecured loan and also disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non deposit of TDS amounting

Vijaygroup Housing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5281/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 144B(8)Section 148Section 250

promoter to assist in sharing any relevant and available information to appropriately share with the ITO, Since the information pertains to unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, to which RP has no knowledge about. There has been no response from the ex-promoter v. Further

Vijaygroup Housing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5280/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 144B(8)Section 148Section 250

promoter to assist in sharing any relevant and available information to appropriately share with the ITO, Since the information pertains to unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, to which RP has no knowledge about. There has been no response from the ex-promoter v. Further

Ankur Pankaj Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 34(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 3308/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.8,80,400/- made by AO towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the Act. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in treating cash deposits as unexplained cash credits ... grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the findings of AO towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the substance of submissions and evidences produced during the course of proceedings. That Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding

Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

filed by the assessee challenges the solitary ground on the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 7. It is observed that the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) has show caused the assessee during the assessment proceeding pertaining ... filed by the assessee challenges the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,07,44,799/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. It is observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has received loan from the following three parties

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

filed by the assessee challenges the solitary ground on the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 7. It is observed that the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) has show caused the assessee during the assessment proceeding pertaining ... filed by the assessee challenges the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,07,44,799/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. It is observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has received loan from the following three parties

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

filed by the assessee challenges the solitary ground on the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 7. It is observed that the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) has show caused the assessee during the assessment proceeding pertaining ... filed by the assessee challenges the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,07,44,799/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. It is observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has received loan from the following three parties

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

filed by the assessee challenges the solitary ground on the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 7. It is observed that the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) has show caused the assessee during the assessment proceeding pertaining ... filed by the assessee challenges the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,07,44,799/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. It is observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has received loan from the following three parties

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

proceeded ex-parte. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making section 68 unexplained cash credit addition in the assessee’s hands 2 ITA No. 405/Del/2024 Promila Devi amounting to Rs.3,96,26,000/-, we not that ... 511/Ahd/2020 in case of ITO Vs Ashapura Petrochem Marketing Pvt. Ltd. held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as source of cash deposit on account of sale of petrol, diesel and other petroleum products duly proved. The relevant part

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

creditors and loan was taken and repaid through banking channels, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating said unsecured loan as fake and unexplained cash credit" Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central vs. Dharmesh Padamshibhai Patel soner reported

ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi vs. Conclusive Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7317/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward 6(3), Vs. Conclusive Traders Pvt. Room No. 376A, C.R. Ltd. Building, I.P. Estate, 51/2, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi – 5 (Pan: Aadcc3358B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya: Am This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Following Grounds:- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 2,85,00,000/- Received By The Assesee Company As Unexplained Cash Credit. Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Prove The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions As Per Judgement Of Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Where It Was Held That Mere Filing Of Pan No.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,85,00,000/- received by the assesee company as unexplained cash credit. ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions as per judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 486/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.486/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs2464C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Samuel Nagadesi, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Samuel Nagadesi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

requirements of section 68 being fulfilled, the AO is not justified to add Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to the total income as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act. The AO is directed to delete the addition made at Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. Grounds raised

Sasi Chellan, Trivandrum vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 750/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, CA
Section 56Section 68

erred in considering that lack of response from different buyers of wood for an amount of Rs. 59,28,308/- as similar to unexplained cash credit. PRAYER For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the addition made ... such details, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs. 12,63,000/- being gift received from the close relatives as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. We have considered the submission made by the Ld.AR that the assessee is having all the details of the relatives