← 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

Shri Vijay Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2623/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

holding that bogus pre-arranged exemption on account of income from long term capital asset is disallowed and is treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs.4,31,837/- towards unexplained expenditure

Shri Amit Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2592/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

holding that bogus pre-arranged exemption on account of income from long term capital asset is disallowed and is treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs.4,31,837/- towards unexplained expenditure

Shri Shrey Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3(40, Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2565/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

holding that bogus pre-arranged exemption on account of income from long term capital asset is disallowed and is treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs.4,31,837/- towards unexplained expenditure

Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2539/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

holding that bogus pre-arranged exemption on account of income from long term capital asset is disallowed and is treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs.4,31,837/- towards unexplained expenditure

Shri Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2530/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

holding that bogus pre-arranged exemption on account of income from long term capital asset is disallowed and is treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs.4,31,837/- towards unexplained expenditure

Shri Kamal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2522/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

holding that bogus pre-arranged exemption on account of income from long term capital asset is disallowed and is treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs.4,31,837/- towards unexplained expenditure

DCIT Central Circle 29, New Delhi vs. B.R. Goel & Sons, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1769/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

justified in deleting the addition made on account of cash deposit of Rs 2,69,97,300/- made in the bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... disputed by the revenue and addition was made on account of cash deposits in the sum of Rs 1,09,49,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AO based on the decision taken by him in Asst Year 2011-12, reopened the proceedings

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. B.R. Goel & Sons, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1768/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

justified in deleting the addition made on account of cash deposit of Rs 2,69,97,300/- made in the bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... disputed by the revenue and addition was made on account of cash deposits in the sum of Rs 1,09,49,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AO based on the decision taken by him in Asst Year 2011-12, reopened the proceedings

M/S City Shoppe Estates Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

application money received from two share subscriber's M/s. Terminal Sales (P) Ltd. and M/s. Vanaspati Vinimay (P) Ltd. treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) and made ... holding it as unaccounted money in the garb of share capital and share premium in the books of the assessee treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the said addition. 4. Before

Sahal Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2621/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

made by the AO on account of Share Application Money received from Jasmine Port Folio & Finlease Pvt. Ltd which by treating the same unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 21.09.2012 declaring total income ... note that the AO, instead examining and enquiring into the materials/evidences furnished further, has straightaway jumped to the conclusion that these are unexplained cash credit for the reasons that the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act remained non complied. Similarly the Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the findings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Udhavdas Mohandas Rupchandani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ankush KapoorFor Respondent: M. Subramaniam
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 245D(4)Section 69

issue involved in both these appeals relate to the protective addition of Rs.8,00,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee JV. The facts relating to this protective addition are that, the AO had found that there were ... unexplained investment and correspondingly made protective addition in the hands of the assessee JV also by way of unexplained cash credit in AY 2017-18. 53. Aggrieved by this action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Having regard to the cumulative facts

Sheela Ashok Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 68

Lakh share of M/s. Greencrest, was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the assessee and upheld ... context of the genuineness of share subscription monies raised by closely held companies, which were held to be in the nature of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by the judicial forums. Having perused those judgments, it is noted that, the question as to whether the assessee

Shrikant Ramesh Merchant, Mumbai vs. ACIT in Situ ITO -19 (3) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

bank account. In view thereof, the CIT(A) found there was no 7 Shrikant Ramesh Merchant 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

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessment was completed at total income of Rs.78,49,165/-, wherein an addition of Rs.28,80,005/- was made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The said addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal and the Grounds

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessment was completed at total income of Rs.78,49,165/-, wherein an addition of Rs.28,80,005/- was made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The said addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal and the Grounds

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Radhe Krishna Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69B

following additions: (a) understatement of value of investment in immovable property u/s. 69 of the Act Rs. 1,11,69,600/- (b) unexplained cash credit Rs. 54,50,000/- (c) disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act Rs. 11,00,000/- Thus the Assessing Officer determined the total income as Rs.2 ... Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,50,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit. III. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.11,00,000/- made

DCIT Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore vs. Navaratna Maaligai, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 801/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 48/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Navaratna Maaligai, Income Tax, V. No. 362, Raja Street, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 001. Aayakar Bhavan, [Pan: Aaifn-6257-E] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate

from all the parties and also called upon the assessee to show cause ‘as to why’ the credits should not be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that as per law, it is not required to collect complete address and PAN from ... respect of cash receipts, and thus, opined that cash receipts claimed to have been received by the assessee from various persons is unexplained cash credits taxable u/s.68 of the Act. The second reason given by the AO was that there is a contradiction in the claim of the assessee

ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore vs. M/S Surabii Gold, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 372/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Surabii Gold, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), V. 138, Karuppa Gounder Street, Aayakar Bhavan, K G Street, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Abufs-6503-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

towards source for cash deposits into bank account and balance cash deposit of Rs. 7,75,65,500/- has been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), on the ground that from 08.11.2016 onwards, except certain category ... Accordingly, the AO concluded that the assessee could not offer any explanation which is backed by proof, therefore, the amount was the unexplained cash credits in the books of the assessee is brought to tax u/s 68 read with s.115BBE of the Act. 5.5 Countering the arguments

JCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Tara Jewellery, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 276/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 276/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Tara Jewellery, Income-Tax, V. 61, West Bashyakaralu Road, Non-Corporate Circle -2, R S Puram, Aayakar Bhavan, Coimbatore – 641 002. 63, Race Course Road, [Pan: Aagft-2345-B] Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 68Section 69A

from all the parties and also called upon the assessee to show cause ‘as to why’ the credits should not be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that as per law, it is not required to collect complete address and PAN from ... respect of cash receipts, and thus, opined that cash receipts claimed to have been received by the assessee from various persons is unexplained cash credits taxable u/s.68 of the Act. The second reason given by the AO was that there is a contradiction in the claim of the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Avaada Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4342/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Disallowance under section 14A- Rs. 8,49,459/- b. Difference in 26AS- unreconciled amount Rs. 4,01,299 c. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68-Rs. 28,00,00,000/- During the assessment the documents which were produced before the AO are: Ledger confirmation from the M/s Integral Distributors ... also noted that the assessment was also completed in the case of the lender u/s 143(3) and no addition for any unexplained cash credits has been made. Further, the genuineness of the transaction can also be M/s. Avaada Ventures Pvt. Ltd safely concluded since the entire transaction has been