← 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

Trivandrum Cable Network (P) Ltd, Trivandrum vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 691/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

doing so, the AO made following additions / disallowances:- (i) Addition of undisclosed advertisement & slot income. Rs.5,22,344 (ii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs.8,21,100 (iii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs. 59,100 (iv) Addition on account of disallowance of exps ... income of the assessee even in the case of search assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs.59,100 and addition on account of estimated disallowance of expenditure of Rs.59,237. Insofar as the addition of Rs.1,57,038 being disallowance

Trivandrum Cable Network (P) Ltd, Trivandrum vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 690/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

doing so, the AO made following additions / disallowances:- (i) Addition of undisclosed advertisement & slot income. Rs.5,22,344 (ii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs.8,21,100 (iii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs. 59,100 (iv) Addition on account of disallowance of exps ... income of the assessee even in the case of search assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs.59,100 and addition on account of estimated disallowance of expenditure of Rs.59,237. Insofar as the addition of Rs.1,57,038 being disallowance

Trivandrum Cable Network (P) Ltd, Trivandrum vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

doing so, the AO made following additions / disallowances:- (i) Addition of undisclosed advertisement & slot income. Rs.5,22,344 (ii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs.8,21,100 (iii) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs. 59,100 (iv) Addition on account of disallowance of exps ... income of the assessee even in the case of search assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs.59,100 and addition on account of estimated disallowance of expenditure of Rs.59,237. Insofar as the addition of Rs.1,57,038 being disallowance

I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Ka Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 339/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

this case, the Ld. AO vide order dated 23.03.2015 enhanced the income of the assessee by adding Rs. 2,04,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. AO has recorded a finding as under: “It is clear from the entire proceedings that the subscribers to share capital and premium ... Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. capital. Still another opportunity was provided on 27/02/2015 asking the reason for not treating fresh credits of share capital/premium as unexplained cash credits u/s.68. This letter is deemed to be received as it did not return unserved. But there was no compliance. In view of the above

M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2101/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250

well as bank account of the assessee and should have mentioned at least as to from whom the assessee has received the unexplained cash credits etc. Even the most peculiar point is that on identical reasons, the assessment for assessment year 2012- 13 was reopened, however, in the assessment order

M/S Moonlight Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.-13(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024 is allowed with the deletion of penalty levied

ITA 1990/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed Primarily Because There Was An Alleged Delay Of More Than 7 Years In The Filing Of First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay & Thereafter Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 698Section 69B

unexplained investment u/s 69B; and also, two additions of Rs. 3,69,450/- and Rs. 3,65,75,550/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not succeed primarily because there was an alleged delay of more than ... confirm the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 3,69,450/- and Rs.3,65,75,550/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law. 4. That the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirm the addition made

M/S Moonlight Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.-13(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024 is allowed with the deletion of penalty levied

ITA 1989/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed Primarily Because There Was An Alleged Delay Of More Than 7 Years In The Filing Of First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay & Thereafter Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 698Section 69B

unexplained investment u/s 69B; and also, two additions of Rs. 3,69,450/- and Rs. 3,65,75,550/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not succeed primarily because there was an alleged delay of more than ... confirm the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 3,69,450/- and Rs.3,65,75,550/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law. 4. That the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirm the addition made

T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Sellur, Madurai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Income Tax Office, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2553/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

balance cash deposit of ₹.2,86,54,300/- [₹.3,26,54,300 – 40,00,000] to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 8. Before ... assessee could not furnish any evidence for the cash deposits of ₹.2,86,54,300/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could

T.M Handlooms Private Limited, Sellur, Madurai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Income Tax Office, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2552/CHNY/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

balance cash deposit of ₹.2,86,54,300/- [₹.3,26,54,300 – 40,00,000] to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 8. Before ... assessee could not furnish any evidence for the cash deposits of ₹.2,86,54,300/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could

Manjit Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6534/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

Thus, addition of Rs. 64,01,819/- is not at all justified and the same same may be deleted. C. Addition Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 34,99,380/- 5. Ld. NFAC as well as the A.O. erred in treating cash deposited in bank ... cash-in-hand available with the Appellant as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The AO failed to appreciate the evidence placed before him. Thus, addition of Rs. 34,99,380/- is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. 3 Manjit Singh

Pradeep Jain Legal Heir of Jay Narayan, Firozabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad

ITA 338/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand

Section 147Section 159(4)Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Kushal Varshney, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

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

ITA 222/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kushal Varshney, Vs. Ito, 1/83, Naurangabad, Aligarh Ward-4(1)(3), Up 202001 Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aevpv0578H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 68

Rs.346,110/-made by Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the LT. Act treating the addition in capital account of the Assessee as unexplained cash credit. 6. Because the source of addition in capital account is fully explainable and hence the addition should have been deleted. 7. Because ... explanation, the Learned AO proceeded to treat the addition made to the capital account in the sum of Rs 3,46,110/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment. This action was upheld by the Learned CITA. Even before

Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram vs. Vijayanagaram Wheat Products Private Limited, Kondakarakam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 312/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

iserroneous in law and to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition towards unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee has discharged its primary onus of filing documentary evidences to substantiate

Raghav Agarwal (HUF), Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 275/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraraghav Agarwal (Huf) The Income Tax Officer V. 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Ward-1(1)(3) Kanpur-208004. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aanhr2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68Section 69C

quashed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 84,85,078/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 as against LTCGs claimed by the assessee, exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, which addition is contrary to facts

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 39/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Shamim M. Bharwani (Mumbai ITAT) [69 Taxmann.com 65] treated the LTCG of Rs.1,17,78,534/- as bogus. The LTCG was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee

Sai Sakshi Automotive Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2725/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

following disallowances / additions: i) Disallowance of EPF/ESIC contribution Rs.14,77,899/- ii) Disallowances in Profit and Loss Account Rs.72,51,796/- iii) Unexplained Cash credits u/s 68 Rs.6,68,20,111/- 4. Since the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 149 days, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

Swarup Palit, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1465/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

submit that the same is an ex parte assessment order. It has been further submitted that this was not a case of unexplained cash credit into the bank of the assessee. That the amount in question was actually transfer of money from partnership account in which the assessee

N J Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6531/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailn J Developers, 118, Vardhman Indl Estate, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan: Aajfn 0863 H ……………. Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai (Earlier Jurisdiction Was With Ito- 32(2)(2)), ……………. Respondent 735, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal Revenue By : Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 250Section 68

which are duly supported with relevant documentary evidence. Thus, the addition of Rs. 153,00,000/- made by treating the said loans as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. The addition under section ... bogus transaction of unsecured loan (without interest) to the extent of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- and thus, the same is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the | T Act. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- is treated as deemed income of assessee

Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5183/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2016-17 Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Income Tax Officer, 4Th Floor, Ward-27(2)(1), Veer Vijay Apartment, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Building, M.G. Road, Ghatkoper West, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 6Th Tower, Complex, Pan: Aqbps3462P Navi Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 10(38)Section 68

deposited in respondent’s bank account. In view thereof, the CIT(A) found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vidhisha Gold Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2663/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

Since the assessee did not furnish the required documents to prove the cash credits, the AO assessed the above said amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.1. The AO noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.5 ... view of the above, the AO rejected the books of accounts and assessed the entire cash deposit of Rs.5,94,60,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The AO also noticed that the assessee has received funds from other concerns and they have been transferred