← 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

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2770/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

decided cases, the AO had added the share capital raised by the assessee in AYs 2011-12 8s 2012-13 by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the assessments framed u/s 153A of the Act. On appeal, it was the assessee’s contention that

Aashiyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 7920/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Aashiyana Civil Contractors Vs. Dcit, P. Ltd., Central Circle, 302-304, Harsha Corner Sector-33, Noida Complex, Isc, Dda, Ghazipur, New Delhi Pan :Aaeca4833G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2024 Order

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

hearing with the able assistance coming from learned CIT(DR) representing Revenue that both the lower authorities herein have made section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.13.60 lakhs in assessment dated 30.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. 4. Faced with this situation, learned

Sopan Bandoba Chavan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 869/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

received from the customers. Thus, the source of said cash receipts stand established and therefore, the cash amount cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. 11. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has reiterated the said submission. It is seen from the statement recorded during the survey that the appellant

Bharat Namdev Patil, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 1726/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer & CIT(A) has erred in treating the Agricultural income of Rs.30,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating and ignoring at all the submission made dated 20.07.2024 over ... taxable income at Rs.46,37,900/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.16,37,900/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained cash credit of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

European Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3732/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44ASection 68

total income at Nil. Assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 30.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.170.28 crores as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. It was on the basis of this addition, ld. Assessing Officer held that assessee was liable to get its account ... books of accounts. It was only in the reassessment that the loans and advances were treated as 3 European Trust, AY 2012-13 unexplained cash credit and were deemed to be income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus, it was submitted that income assessed under the deeming

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. Ground no.1, relates to unexplained cash credits amounting to ` 5,20,84,000. 4. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is in receipt of new unsecured ... sources and in this case, the assessee was unable to discharge this burden satisfactorily. Therefore, the addition of ` 5,20,84,000, as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act was upheld by dismissing the ground raised by the assessee. 7. Ground no.2, relates to disallowance on account

Sultan Singh, Jammu and Kahmir vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

assessment was completed under section 147 r/w section 144B on 16/09/2021, by making an addition of ` 11,05,000, treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. Before the learned

Dhruv Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 68

confirming the action of the Ld. AO in assessing Rs. 10 Lakh received during the year on account of sale of investments as unexplained cash credit in spite of the fact that the assessee Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 867/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhruv Vanijya Private Limited. filed ... assessing For that the Ld. AO erred in assessing Rs. 10 Lakh received during the year on account of sale of investments as unexplained cash credit in spite of the fact that the notice issued to the party to whom the investments were sold was duly served and complied with

Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1151/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd……………………………………………..…..……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aahcm6624J] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata............…....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 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’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.4,540/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Due To Large Share Premium Received By The Assessee During The Relevant Financial Year. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) & 142(2) Of The Act Requesting For Furnishing Requisite Information. In Response To The Notices, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Provided Primary Details Including An Explanation That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. Upon

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

genuineness of the transactions were not satisfactorily demonstrated, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the share capital received and treating the unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. DR argued that the case laws cited by the ld. AR were factually distinct rendering them inapplicable ... facts and submissions and judicial precedents, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.2,62,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is unsustainable since the assessee has sufficiently established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction relating to the share

Kco Aluminium LLP, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1137/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

during the year itself. The balance Rs. 13,32,70,420/- has been added by the ld. AO as unexplained cash credit. 2.2. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, during the appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) called ... along before the authorities below and the Ld. AO in his wisdom chose to pick up a certain amount for adverse treatment, as unexplained cash credit, leaving out the rest of the amounts, which pertained to the same 05 entities. Clearly the Ld. Pr. CIT’s actions are not condonable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 32 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Bongaon Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bongaon West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1101/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Assessing Officer and hence it was rightly treated as Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80P(2)(d)

income. The Ld. AO essentially made two additions on account of interest income received (Rs. 35,63,552/-) and as unexplained cash credit on account of sums deposited in cash by the appellant during I.T.A. No.1101/Kol/2023 Bongaon Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bongaon the demonetisation period ... seen that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credit following the judgment in the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hosadurga, ITA No. 646/Bang/2021, order dated 18.02.2022. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) also granted partial relief on the addition made on account

Cisco Systems India Private Limited, Kadabeesanahalli, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru - 2, Bangalore, Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 115JSection 234BSection 263Section 68

number of equity shares of 75,88,22,560 (328,29,84,000 — ,440) values at Rs.758,82,25,600/-. This resulted in unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of This resulted in short levy of tax of Rs.896,87,13,542/- including interest u/s 234B of Rs.310

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

alleged as cash deposit into bank account during the demonetization period, with an unfounded presumption that this would be the amount of unexplained cash credit into the books of accounts without relevance and on the illogical grounds and erred in determination of tax liability as provision of section 115BBE ... genuineness of the transaction. Thus, in view of the totality of the facts of the case, addition of Rs.13,84,097/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the LT. Act. 1961 is confirmed and the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5.7. In the grounds of appeal, with regard

Dhara Motor Finance Limited, Meerut vs. DCIT, Range, Bijnor

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2942/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs. 9,52,493/- pertaining to alleged concealed income of Rs. 30,82,500/- representing quantum addition of unexplained cash credits. 3. Learned DR invited my attention to the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 1.12.2015 that the assessee could not prove genuineness/ creditworthiness of the said cash

K. Narsimha, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, owing to absence of incriminating material found and seized and absence of statutory approval u/s 153D, the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 270/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

grossly erred in law and in facts in remanding back the issue pertaining to the addition of Rs.8,41,000/- on account of (unexplained cash credits to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the cash credits in the bank accounts of the Appellant/Assessee and then delete the addition

Karan Singh, Unnao vs. ITO-2(4), Unnao

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

ITA 494/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Karan Singh V. Ito-2(4) 496, Hiran Nagar Unnao _ New Unnao, Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aqwpls6478L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.09.2020, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-01, Lucknow (Ld. Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had E- Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,47,580/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.10,00,000/- In Old Sbns (Specified Bank Notes) On 15.11.2016 In His Bank Account No.010010100010068 With Aryavart Bank. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Along With A Questionnaire.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessee at Rs.14,47,580/-, treating the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period as unexplained cash credit and added the same under section 69A of the Act. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. 4. Aggrieved

Alok Maheshchandra Agrawal, Jalgaon vs. DCIT - 1, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1736/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1736/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Alok Maheshchandra V The Dcit-1, Agarwal, S Jalgaon. Alok Agro Product 137, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Afypa7187D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dinar Daptary – Ca & Shri Sidhesh Mayekar – Ar Revenue By Dr. Shashank Ojha – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2016- 17 Dated 18.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. In This Case, Assessment Order Has Been Passed U/Sec.143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Act, On 30.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1 On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without Appreciating The Provisions Of Law, Statutory Schemes, Facts, Submissions, Documents & Case Laws. The Appellant Prays That The Entire Assessment Be Treated As Bad In Law.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 2nSection 68

that the entire assessment be treated as bad in law. 2. Addition on account of closing Cash Balance of Rs.32,13,324 as Unexplained Cash Credit 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the invoking of provisions of Sec.68 ofthe Act for making addition on account ... deleted in toto. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of closing cash balance as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by ignoring the explanation and documentary evidence furnished In the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the addition made

DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nikita Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2593/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 68

submission of appellant and the Order of Learned Assessing Officer. The ground of appeal pertains to carrying out addition u/s 68 (i.e. unexplained cash credits) in the event of depositing cash in the bank account during demonetization for sum of Rs. 16,74,56,383/-. The contentions of the appellant ... absence of any such adverse finding of learned Assessing Officer on contention of appellant, the cash deposited shall not be treated as unexplained cash credit. 5.1.7 In this regard, reliance can be placed on following judicial pronouncements: ACIT VS Hirapanna Jewellers [ITA No.253/Viz/2020] - Vishakhapatnam "..In the instant case the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Svam Software Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 334/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153C

made by the Learned AO under section 147 of the Act by treating the sum of Rs 4,49,96,788/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act by using the search material received in the case of Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Svam Software Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 333/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153C

made by the Learned AO under section 147 of the Act by treating the sum of Rs 4,49,96,788/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act by using the search material received in the case of Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain