← 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

Sheetal Saini, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Gains Received On Sale Of Listed Company Shares By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs 50,49,950/- Is To Be Treated As Business Income Or Income From Other Sources In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Asst Year 2014-15 On 28.3.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs 6,76,086/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Sold Shares Of Listed Company & Declared Capital Gains & Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Thought It Fit To Revise Its Return Of Income By Treating The Gains Arising On Sale Of Shares As Business Income Instead Of Offering Capital Gains & Claim

Section 10(38)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

classified as a penny stock by the department and hence the gains arising on sale of shares would have to be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld CIT(A). 4. At the outset, we find ... same. In view of the same, there is no reason for the revenue to treat the amounts received on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence we direct the ld. AO to recomputed the income

Jade Granites Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appellant firm namely Harpalsinh Yadav [Rs.7,20,000/-], Ankit J. Patel [Rs.9,00,000/-) and Ritesh Chaudhary [Rs.30,00,000/-] as unexplained cash credit on the basis of observation/findings given in the appellate order. (ii) The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming ... above, the impugned addition of Rs.46,20,000/- being the part of the capital introduced by 3 partners of the appellant firm as unexplained cash credit is required to be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds and to submit

Mafaji Umedaji Jat, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 940/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.940/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mafaji Umedaji Jat The Income Tax Officer At Rampura बनाम/ Ward-1 Po Rampura, Tal.Deesa Palanpur 385 001 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 535 Dist. Banaskantha (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akipj 4846 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/09/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Read With Mafaji Umedaji Jat Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

Rs.40,99,315/- and unsecured loan of Rs.10,01,843/- thereby making total addition of Rs.90,01,758/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) against the order of AO. The Ld.CIT(A) issued notices

Nitesh Rajhans Singh, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer -26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4114/MUM/2023[BAMPS4588L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

read with section 143(3) of the Act where huge additions were made in the hands of the company on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act." 5.4 The Tribunal further stated that the findings of the Assessing Officer was not correct, observing thus, Furthermore, once

Bijadi Vitta Geetha, Shiralkoppa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1089/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Bijadi Vitta Geetha, The Income Tax # 2856, Gandhinagar, Officer, 1St Cross, Ward – 2, Shiralkoppa, Shivamogga. Karnataka – 577 428. Vs. Pan: Bsupg8856K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Advocate, Standing
Section 68

only taken into consideration by the Ld.CIT(A) and the balance cash made after 14.11.2016, was added as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the act by the Ld.AO which was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 4. He submitted that assessee was not aware of the appellate order being passed

Mrs Rinky Kapoor, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 1862/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. VinitaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in adding an amount of Rs.61,45,653/- as unexplained cash credit which was actually Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of shares.” 3. It is noted that there is a delay ... made an addition of Rs.62,20,653/- in respect of sale proceeds of the shares sold by the assessee by treating it as unexplained cash credit 3 Mrs. Rinky Kapoor, AY 2014-15 u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. From

Shakti Forwarders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1825/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Shakti Forwarders Private Ito 14(3)(1), Mumbai Limited 47A 47A, Sindhi Society Little Vs. Malbar Hill, Chembur, Maharashtra-400071. Pan: Aalcs 3962 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta Revenue By : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

assessee with the party M/s. Global Telecom has remained unproved. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,11,73,195/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee and added back to the total income u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act by treating the amount of Rs. 2,11,73,195/- received from M/s. Global Telecom as unexplained cash credit due to not reconciliation with the total turnover shown by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte

M/S Gryffin Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Thane

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

ITA 1075/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Gryffin Advisory Services Dcit, Circle-2, Thane Pvt. Ltd. E-805, Sonam Srivilas, Phase Vs. Xv, New Golder Nest, Bhayander €, Thane – 401105, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 3,10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on account of not proving the genuineness of the loan transactions as discussed supra in this order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. vs. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 362/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.362/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1) Momin Ahmedabad Plot No.524A V/S. Opp.Adarsh Hospital Nr.Telav Sheala Cross Road At Telav Sanand Ahmedabad 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam V. Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 29-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Deleting Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Ito Vs. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 AO. Therefore, AO treated the deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added u/s.68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 2.3. The Assessee also could not explain the receipts from debtors and deposited in bank ... Since there was no compliance from the assessee, the AO added the total amount of Rs.1,74,09,917/- as unexplained cash credit to the income of assessee. The AO added these unexplained cash credit u/s.68 as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

Tarun Santramdas Varma, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 852/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.852/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tarun Santramdas Varma The Asst.Cit बनाम/ 307-308, Sarthik Square Circle 4 (1)(1) Nr. New Us Pizz, Ahmedabad V/S. Sg Highway Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaipv 6427 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29-8-2023 Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Arising From The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Tarun Satramdas Varma Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee. Despite the submissions and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,13,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order and the addition made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner ... facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in treating cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Rs. 33,90,000/- 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Section

Dr. Vikas Jagannath Pol, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(2), Pune

In the result the appellant gets relief of Rs

ITA 831/PUN/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.831/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dr. Vikas Jagannath Pol, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. A/1/4 Rangriha Chs Salunkhe Vihar Road, Kondhwa-411048. Pan : Agipp7216P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.09.20222 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-11, Pune [“Ld. Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts Upholding Addition Of Unsecured Loan Of Rs.52,00,000. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals] Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing Rectification Of Order Under Section 143(3) Under Section 154 & Upholding Addition Of Unsecured Loan Of Rs.52,00,000 Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Craves His Right To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271DSection 68

director. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer added the above amount in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 29.12.2016 determining the total taxable

Radiant Commercial & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 657/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

Finally the AO treated the share capital of Rs. 6,55,000/- along with share premium of Rs. 1,89,95,000/- as unexplained cash credit as the assessee could not establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and even did not produce the director

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Kag India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 669/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.669/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Kag India Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Chennai. Velachery Road,East Tambaram, Vs. Chennai-600 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadck-5381-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

transactions and creditworthiness of the investments. Finally, the share allotment money of Rs.1487.50 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found with respect to impugned additions. The regular ... 153A of the Act that has escaped from assessment. In the assessment order, the only addition made by Ld. AO was addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and therefore, Ld. AO without arriving at any valid satisfaction about the existence of any underlying asset which has escaped from assessment

Harish Kumar Garg, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 767/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 44ASection 60ASection 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 by the treating the cash deposited in the bank accounts of the assesseee as unexplained cash credits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the reply of the assesseee that the cash deposited ... business activity. Hence, cash deposit amounting to Rs. 19,01,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 60A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is submitted that the assessee is an individual

Sh. Bimal Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 68

confirming the addition of Rs.5,49,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating the loan received from following parties as unexplained cash credit (1) Swapnil Agarwal – Rs.49,000/- (ii) Meenakshi Gupta – Rs. 49,000/- (iii) Kirti Agarwal – Rs.75,000/- (iv) Aakariti Agarwal – Rs.75,000/- (v) Krishan Kumar Rs.95

Nikki Pachisia, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma CA, &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

earned by Client Code Modification facility and in further confirming action of the Id AO in charging the said profit to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 after rejecting submission of the appellant that it was income earned from Business and correctly declared

Mr. Anilkumar Manoharlal Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2336/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Aakash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR. DR.)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

During the assessment proceeding the ld. AO disallowed the claim of the assessee and had added the LTCG as unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of the Act andRs. 4,15,820/-U/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure related to the earning of capital gain with total income

Ajay Baburam Gupta, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2312/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prasham DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69B

Appeal erred In confirming the Addition of Rs. 17000000/- on account of unexplained Investment u/s 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961 And unexplained cash credit 68 of the income tax act,1961 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred as Facts And ln Law in Completing Assessment ... which was added back U/s 69B as unexplained investment and addition of Rs.68,49,000/- which was added back U/s 68 as unexplained cash credit and total income is worked out to Rs.2,55,97,300/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But Ld.CIT

Smt Deepali Manthan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)-(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1418/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

filing of the assessee’s lower appeal. On the one hand and further confirmed section 57(iii) disallowance as well as section 68 unexplained cash credits involving varying sums on the other. 3. Learned DR vehemently supported the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion during the course of hearing before