← 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

Solar Energy Equipments Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Corp. Ward 6(3) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 289/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.289/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Solar Energy Equipments Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward 6(3) 3B (Western Road) Chennai. Old No. 4, New No.7, Lvr Center, Seshadri Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aascs 5557P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)

made following additions/disallowances: (i) Opening stock of Rs.9,46,18,103/-; (ii) 10% of purchases Rs.20,61,904/-; (iii)Addition on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs.1,45,34,663/-; 3. Further, the appellant filed the appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Act dated

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 27(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is allowed

ITA 3688/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Ar Acit, Circle- 27(1) Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 225/226 Commodity Exchange, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Plot No.2/3/4 Sector-17, Vashi, Complex,Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai -400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Banps6548H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts in treating the credits in the bank account of the appellant to the tune of Rs.2,46,92,401/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 viii. )Because, Ld. AO erred in law and on facts i n adding Rs. 2,46,92,401/- without appreciating the documentary evidence submitted

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

outstanding trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u/s 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding the alternative addition ... trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u / s * 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding the alternative addition

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

outstanding trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u/s 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding the alternative addition ... trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u / s * 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding the alternative addition

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Dhaneshwari Wood Products Ltd, Assam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. J. Bhide, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 68

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,01,18,757/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce any confirmation or paper in support of its claim ... paras Rs.2,10,59,816/- is hereby added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained cash credit.” 5. Thus, the addition has been made on the balance of the liabilities outstanding u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Dhaneshwari Wood Products Ltd, Assam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 728/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. J. Bhide, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 68

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,01,18,757/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce any confirmation or paper in support of its claim ... paras Rs.2,10,59,816/- is hereby added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained cash credit.” 5. Thus, the addition has been made on the balance of the liabilities outstanding u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved

Nalini Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.672/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nalini Kejriwal……..……….….…………............…...……………....Appellant 7, Lyons Range, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Ajopk0890K] Vs. Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2024 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 11.05.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1A) That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,01,98,784/- Being Profit Earned From Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Gcm Securities Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act Without Considering The Explanation With Supporting Evidences Filed By The Appellant In A Proper Perspective. B) That, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Further Erred In Not Considering That Despite Details Provided & The Fact That No Long Term Capital Gain Was Claimed In Respect Of The Impugned Transaction Of Sale Of Shares Of M/S.

Section 250Section 5Section 68Section 69C

confirming the addition of Rs. 1,01,98,784/- being profit earned from sale of shares of M/s. GCM Securities Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act without considering the explanation with supporting evidences filed by the appellant in a proper perspective. b) That, the Ld. C.I.T

Acuity Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1338/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1338/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Acuity Merchants Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant Amrita Abasan, Bimalendu Ghosh Sarani, Sonarpur, Kolkata- 700150. [Pan: Aaica4474D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata……...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2024 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 25.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law In Having Upheld The Addition Of Rs 8.61,73,500/- U/S 68 Of The Act Without Properly Appreciating The Admitted Facts On Record That The Assessee Had Received Loans In The Form Of Shares Only From Various Parties/Creditors Duly Reflected In The Demat Account & Not Any Fund Transacted Either Through Bank Or Cash Book & Hence Such Receipt Of Shares As Loan Did Not Amount To Cash Credit As Envisaged U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

liability of the company to the shareholders has not been disputed and hence the allotment of shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. 4. That, therefore, as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issues suffers from illegality and is devoid of any merit, the addition ... respect of 5 persons amounting to Rs.8,61,73,500/-. He, therefore, treated the said amount of Rs.8,61,73,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and taxed the same as per the provisions of section115BBE of the Act. I.T.A. No.1338/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Acuity

Alma Assets Consultancy Private Limited., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1092/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1092/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Alma Assets Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.………............…...……………....Appellant 341-K1, Post Office: Sahabana, Chandigarh Road, Mundian Khurd Ludhiana. [Pan: Aaica6234H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20 , 2024 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 21.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.10,26,99,100/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Cash Credits Into The Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Contested Not Only The Validity Of The Additions On Merits But Also Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act & Also The Validity Of The Assessment For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee in this appeal has agitated against the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,26,99,100/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits into the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee through its grounds of appeal has contested not only the validity of the additions on merits

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

appellant during the year under consideration amounting to Rs..3,98,44,328/- by the list of share subscribers were treated as unexplained cash credit by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The reasons for this was because (a) none of the directors of the subscriber companies appeared before ... Appeals)-9, Kolkata thereby deleting the addition of Rs.6,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit in the form of share capital and share premium only on the ground that no cash or cheque was actually received by the respondent assessee

Sudha, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 216/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.216/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A17/11, Krishnamoorthy Nagar Ext, Ward 1(3) Rajarajan Nagar, Trichy. K.K.Nagar, Trichy 620 021. [Pan: Aotps 7021Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

debit from the assessee’s account. Accordingly, the cash deposit of Rs.46,31,000/- made into the bank account was treated as unexplained cash credits and taxed under section 68 of the Act in the order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 24.12.2019. 3. Further, the appellant assailed

Akar Laminators Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1) (Astt. Order Passsing Authority) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) (Current Jurisdiction), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 717/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. & Ms. Saumya Pandey
Section 144Section 148Section 68

raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 17,20,55,000/- as unexplained cash credit from an undisclosed source without any basis, material, or evidence whatsoever. It is submitted that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is blatantly ... Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.17,20,55,000/- as unexplained cash credit in spite of the fact that the appellant has not received any money from M/s. Khetan Overseas Corporation in cash or by cheque, as deposit

Akar Laminators Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1) (Asstt. Order Passing Authority) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) (Current Jurisdiction), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 716/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. & Ms. Saumya Pandey
Section 144Section 148Section 68

raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 17,20,55,000/- as unexplained cash credit from an undisclosed source without any basis, material, or evidence whatsoever. It is submitted that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is blatantly ... Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.17,20,55,000/- as unexplained cash credit in spite of the fact that the appellant has not received any money from M/s. Khetan Overseas Corporation in cash or by cheque, as deposit

Sriman Stocks Managements Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 2911/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Sriman Stocks Vs. Ito Ward-2(1) Management Pvt. Ltd. B Wing, Room No. 26, 302/B, Garden Court, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Temba Hospital Road, Road No. 16, Wagle Bhayander West, Thane, Industrial Estate, Thane, Maharashtra – 401101 Maharashtra – 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs3834N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

account of unsecured loan taken by the assessee in the impugned year from M/s. Lunkad Textiles Pvt Ltd as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and Rules made ... therefore, the assessing officer treated the same as bogus accommodation entry and added the same to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

Vijay Kumar Chandeshwar Yadav, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO(28)(3)(4), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2746/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Vijay Kumar C. Yadav a/wFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 44ASection 68

whole age |4 ITA No.2746/Mum/2023 Vijay Kumar Chandeshwar Yadav Vs. ITO 28(3)(4) amount of Rs.24,05,195/- was added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

Rekha Nilesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2300/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Assessing Officer held sale of shares of Blazon Marbles Ltd. as penny stock and made addition of sales proceeds of shares as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal deleted the addition by reversing the findings of AO/CIT(A) in denying exemption under section

Rakesh Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3571/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The assessing Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, officer made the addition u/s 68 as, unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into section 68 which

Sv Diamonds Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3471/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahmanr & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sv Diamonds Private Vs. Ito, Limited New Delhi. Shop No. 308 A, Third Floor, Gali No. 4, 2606-2607, Karol Bagh New Delhi 110 005. Pan Aapcs5185G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

assessment order dated 15.12.2019 assessing income as Rs. 34,98,58,460/- by adding Rs. 34,87,65,950/- as cash sales as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee filed income tax return declaring income ... under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not in accordance with law as income cannot be treated at par with unexplained cash credit. So appeal may be accepted. 7. Learned Representative for Department submitted that impugned orders are legal. 8. From examination of record in light

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

assessee and assessee offers no explanation for the said amount, the same may be added back to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. As the assessee has failed to offer any explanation in this regard, the same is added back to income of the assessee ... Part of exempt Income(from sale of agricultural land) of Rs.353195/-, the addition of balance exempt Income of Rs.4096805/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 is not only illegal but also without any merit as provision of section 68 is not applicable to deposits in Bank account & Appellant

Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal, Nagpur vs. Ward 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 322/NAG/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Hargovind Goyal ITA no.322/Nag./2023 3. Whether the Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. 4. Whether the Ld, AO erred in making an addition of Rs.2,19,894/- on FDR as undisclosed ... assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why the deposits in the bank should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. In response to the same, the appellant has made its submission. The Id. A.O. has issued notice