← 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

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

illegal and arbitrary addition of Rs 4,25,50,000/ made u's 68 of the Act by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. respect of amounts received back from Sh Pooran Mal Kanwat despite the fact that; a. all transactions ... absolutely illegal and arbitrary addition of Rs 4,19,46,250/ made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of amounts received back from Sh Pooran Mal Kanwat despite the fact that; i. all transactions entered into with Sh Pooran

Dr. Kriti Chaturbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2783/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ms Padmavathy Sdr.Kirtichaturbhaipatel, Vs. Acit-11(2), 901, Suhas Chs Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Gulmohar Cross Road, M.K.Road, No.12, Juhu, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai- 400049. Pan/Gir No. : Agrpp9744P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sneha More.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250

explanations and invoked the provisions U/sec68 of the Act and made addition of Rs. Dr. Kirti Chaturbhai Patel, Mumbai. 1,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit. Further in respect of the revised computation of income filed by the assessee vide letter dated 16.08.2013, where the assessee has disclosed the capital

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Jabalpur

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

ITA 39/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 67,85,00,100/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit from undisclosed sources. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ... before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 67,85,00,100/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit, Rs. 2,58,60,033/- made on account of unexplained transactions/ unaccounted money and Rs. 104,19,713/- on account of undisclosed income/ unexplained

Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur

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

ITA 37/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 67,85,00,100/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit from undisclosed sources. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ... before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 67,85,00,100/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit, Rs. 2,58,60,033/- made on account of unexplained transactions/ unaccounted money and Rs. 104,19,713/- on account of undisclosed income/ unexplained

Rahul Anil Ahuja, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 31(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is

ITA 6029/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us For Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

erred in law in disallowing the additions of Rs 1.24,84,533/. made to the capital by the assessee as unexplained cash credit. 6. The learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case that the id AO has accepted Sales for the year disallowing ... appeal is related to the addition of Rs. 1,24,84,533/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7.1 The brief facts are that the appellant has shown an addition of Rs. 1,24,84,533/- to his capital

Rahul Anil Ahuja, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 31(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is

ITA 6028/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Us For Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

erred in law in disallowing the additions of Rs 1.24,84,533/. made to the capital by the assessee as unexplained cash credit. 6. The learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case that the id AO has accepted Sales for the year disallowing ... appeal is related to the addition of Rs. 1,24,84,533/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7.1 The brief facts are that the appellant has shown an addition of Rs. 1,24,84,533/- to his capital

Prakash Chand Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 232/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 232/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Chand Jain Pro. Jain Borewell Ganj Road, Nawapara-Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-493 881 Pan : Affpj6898B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151(1)Section 68

total addition of Rs. 15,77,593/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 for alleged unexplained cash credit without properly appreciating the materials furnished before him and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. Hence, the assessee prays that the addition ... erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3 Prakash Chand Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 13,91,000/- made u/s.68 for alleged unexplained cash credits in bank account only on the basis of entries in bank statement by ignoring the fact that bank account statement/bank passbook cannot be treated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Manav Motors, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is disposed-off, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 151/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 151/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 269SSection 270A(2)(a)Section 68

case, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of 2 Manav Motors Rs. 72,42,648/- on account of unexplained cash credit found in the books of the assessee.” 2. “Whether in Law and on the facts and the circumstances of the case ... reduced by opening balance and cash sales made till 08.11.2019 worked out at Rs. 72,42,648/- and have been considered as unexplained cash credits of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 and the same are decided to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE

Shri Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

from October, 2012. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to justify the source or cash deposit and treated the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and brought to tax under amended provisions of Section 115BBE ... stated that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 15.35 lacs under Section 68 of the Act by treating the cash deposit as unexplained cash credit. The assessee furnished computation of income and capital account for the year ended on 31/03/2017 and the balance sheet as on 31/03/2017. The assessee

Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in treating the entire cash deposit during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and thereby enhancing the addition to 2 Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur. Rs. 53,62,500/- as against Rs. 5 lacs made ... center-wise cash receipt of fees is recorded and not student-wise. Accordingly, he treated the entire amount of Rs.53,62,500/- as unexplained cash credit and thus made addition for the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. A/R for the assessee

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Carlisle Trading & Manufacturing India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2313/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2311 To 2313/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: H.M. BhattFor Respondent: Ashik Shah
Section 68

erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on the issue of share premium treated as unexplained cash credits, considering that the assessee was unable to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of said transaction, during the assessment proceedings. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could not be proved. Therefore, amount of Rs.2,23,92,400/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Carlisle Trading & Manufacturing India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2312/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2311 To 2313/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: H.M. BhattFor Respondent: Ashik Shah
Section 68

erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on the issue of share premium treated as unexplained cash credits, considering that the assessee was unable to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of said transaction, during the assessment proceedings. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could not be proved. Therefore, amount of Rs.2,23,92,400/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Carlisle Trading & Manufacturing India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2311/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2311 To 2313/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: H.M. BhattFor Respondent: Ashik Shah
Section 68

erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on the issue of share premium treated as unexplained cash credits, considering that the assessee was unable to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of said transaction, during the assessment proceedings. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could not be proved. Therefore, amount of Rs.2,23,92,400/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee

M/S Sancheti Ornaments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-NFAC CIT Appeals Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1500/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1500/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sancheti Ornaments बिधम/ Ito-Nfac/Cit (A) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. Vs. Room No.7, 2Nd Floor, 65/67 Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0110E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Ruby Shrivastava Revenue By: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,47,500/- Being Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period.

For Appellant: Ms Ruby ShrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 68

cash deposits are added u/s 68 of the Act it will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the fundamental principles of taxation. In the light of the facts, the Ld. AR submitted that addition should be deleted. 8. Per contra

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

with the supporting evidences and details and invoked the provisions of section 68 of the act and made addition of Rs.2 Crores as unexplained cash credit. 5.The second disputed issue is with respect to sale of bullion to four entities, (i) Aman Trading of Rs. 17,99,550; (ii) Aman ... could not be properly substantiated by the assesee with evidences. further the A.O has rejected the books of accounts and made addition as unexplained cash credits U/sec68 of the Act of Rs.5,55,30,00/-. ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 8. The Last disputed issue

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

with the supporting evidences and details and invoked the provisions of section 68 of the act and made addition of Rs.2 Crores as unexplained cash credit. 5.The second disputed issue is with respect to sale of bullion to four entities, (i) Aman Trading of Rs. 17,99,550; (ii) Aman ... could not be properly substantiated by the assesee with evidences. further the A.O has rejected the books of accounts and made addition as unexplained cash credits U/sec68 of the Act of Rs.5,55,30,00/-. ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 8. The Last disputed issue

Progressive Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Cirlce- 2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 5053/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 68

Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. However, disbelieving assessee’s claim, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first ... lakhs received by the assessee from the very same entity, strangely enough, he has treated the balance amount of Rs.35 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. This, in our view is unsustainable. Since, the source of credit in the books of the assessee is well explained; we are of the view

Koneru Vanaja Devi L/R of Koneru Venkata Satya Hanuman Prasad (Late), Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 159/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.159/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) Smt. Koneru Vanaja Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, L/R Of Koneru Venkata Satya Ward-2(4), Hanuman Prasad (Late), Vijayawada. Dr. No. 64-5-20, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada – 520010. Pan: Apapk 7923 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69

which includes certain additions viz., (i) income from LTCG of Rs. 39,78,310/-; (ii) Rs. 30,38,650/- under unexplained cash credits U/s. 68 of the Act and (iii) Rs. 9,85,603/- under unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jayem Holding Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

ITA 93/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment by adding Rs. 5,07,50,000/- in the assessed income of the assessee, treating the receipt of share capital as bogus / unexplained cash credit / income within the provisions of section 68 read with 1st proviso to section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order ... assessee about source of amount invested by share applicant company hence he treated share application of Rs. 5,07,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added under section 68. (ii) The AO has made the addition because the assessee company was not carrying on any business activity during

M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Raigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 70/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

called upon it to explain why the entire amount of share capital/premium of Rs.4,13,41,500/- may not be treated as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Also, the A.O. brought up the fact that the notice issued ... sham. Accordingly, the A.O., backed by his aforesaid observations, held the entire amount of share capital/premium of Rs.4,13,41,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). It was, inter alia, the claim