unexplained cash credit — 7,118 case laws

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Shri Sai Shakshi Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2125/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deletion the addition made on account of share premium received as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to prove and justify the premium charged ... learned CIT(A) erred in deletion the addition made on account of unsecured loan as 3 ITA.No.2125 & 2122/MUM./2024 unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation with regard to the identity, creditworthiness

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Shri Sai Shakshi Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2122/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 68

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deletion the addition made on account of share premium received as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to prove and justify the premium charged ... learned CIT(A) erred in deletion the addition made on account of unsecured loan as 3 ITA.No.2125 & 2122/MUM./2024 unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation with regard to the identity, creditworthiness

Gopal Bholanath Bharwad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1467/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Income Tax Officer Gopal Bholanath Bharwad Ward 32(1)(5) C-101, Radha Krishna, Kautilya Bhavan, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 068 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awvpb1659F Assessee By : Shri Gopal Bholanath Bharwad, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Beena Santosh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Bholanath BharwadFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of making additions of Rs 76,64,910 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition ... unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.” 03. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income declaring total income of ₹7,64,570/- on 29th March, 2018. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice

ITO -24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, HUF, Mumbai

ITA 4013/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

asked to come to I.T. Office with copy of Return of Income, bank statement etc. In such circumstances, the addition u/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit is squarely applicable. f) A very significant point, as noted by Ld. AO, is that not only Investigation Wing of Kolkata Income Tax Department

Rkp Industry Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2404/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarrkp Industry Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 20 (3), F-228, Gali No.8, F – Block, Delhi. Shastri Park, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aancs3372F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 26.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahyathis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 27.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A) Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Grounds Of Appeal On Merit.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 68

erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.46,90,000/- on the account of alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.90,85,000/- on the account of alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case

Anish Rajnikant Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 200/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68

issued by the AO to the assessee as to why cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- shall not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. The assesee filed its return of income in pursuance to the aforesaid show-cause notice , and paid ... rejected the contentions of the assessee, and made the addition of Rs.21,51,200/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, with respect to cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- made by the assessee in its saving bank account number 085104000023913 maintained

Adarsh Seva Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 636/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 66Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO by considering deposits accepted from its members as unexplained cash credits u/s 68.” 3. The issue arising in ground no. 1, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to denial of deduction claimed under section ... bank account statement explaining the increase in unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 3,49,38,051/-, the AO considered the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4493/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

deposit is explained-The AO has treated the entire cash deposit in the bank account amounting to Rs. 6,63,13,654/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The appellant claims that cash deposits in bank account are proceeds of cash sales and sometimes advance against sales orders, a common ... cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation." iii. Analysis of Financial results & Books of Accounts -The appellant has filed copies of Audited

Ramesh Rikhavdas Shah, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24 (3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3546/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 68