← 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

Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Farm No.14, 8Th Avenue, Radhey Circle-13(1), Mohan Drive, Gadaipur, New Delhi New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcj1500C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

making following additions / disallowances vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: (i) addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit in the books of assessee company of INR 2,10,20,000/-; (ii) disallowance on account of personal expenses

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

subjective assumption and presumption could be made a basis to assume, allege and conclude that sales made out of such purchases were unexplained cash credits taxable under section 68 of the Act. It is settled law that once the books of accounts, sales have been accepted, the same could

Sh. Surender Kumar Chawla, Rudrapur vs. ACIT, CC, Haldwani

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

ITA 76/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming ... also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming

Sh. Surender Kumar Chawla, Rudrapur vs. ACIT, CC-, Haldwani

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

ITA 75/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming ... also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming

Sh. Surender Kumar Chawla, Rudrapur vs. ACIT, CC- Haldwani, Haldwani

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

ITA 74/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming ... also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.210, 62, 63, 74 to76 /DDN/2024 Surender Kumar Chawla 9. The learned assessing officer

Sh.Surender Kumar Chawla, Rudrapur vs. ACIT, CC, Haldwani

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

ITA 63/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming ... also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming

Sh. Surinder Kumar Chawla, Rudrapur vs. ACIT, CC, Haldwani

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

ITA 62/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming ... also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming

Sh.Surender Kumar Chawla, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Dehradun, Haldwani

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

ITA 210/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.4,10,817/- being net negative cash as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming ... also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.5,00,000/- received from Daljeet Tanjea as advance allegedly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming

Anju Parekh, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.384/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anju Parekh, Prop. M/S. Kushal Investment, Near Petrol Pump, Station Road, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh-493773 Pan No. Akepp9283A

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

erred in sustaining addition of Rs.11,84,000 on the count of sale proceeds of shares of `NCL Research' as unexplained cash credit u/s.68; assessee has discharged the onus casted upon her u/s.68 by submitting documents/evidence before the AO; the AO has not faulted/disproved the same; onus shifted

Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Navsari

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

ITA 1007/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1007/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ 6-B, Sainath Society, Moroli Navsari-396 445 Vs. Bazar, Navsari-396 436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adfps 0044 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Patel, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

demonetization period, since deposit was made from cash balance available in the books of account, there was no question of treating same as unexplained cash credit. 7.1 In view of the above factual and legal positions, we find that the appellant has been able to explain properly the source

M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

Kanpur, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- made to the returned income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 31.03.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. THAT ... KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF Rs. 14611400.00 TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2. THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS u/s 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE u/s 148 WERE BASED ON IMPROPER PREMISE AND ACCORDINGLY NO LEGAL AND FACTUAL LENGS

Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1502/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta Ito, Ward 1(1), Nashik Flat No.8, Pooja Apartment, Vs. Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik – 422003 Pan: Aghpb1619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish M. Mehta Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 68

holding that the entire cash deposits made in bank account with Renuka Mata Credit Co-op. Society are to be treated as unexplained cash credits without appreciating that the said cash deposits represented turnover of business of the assessee which was already offered to tax as sales, is apparently unjustified

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 857/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.857/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune. Vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Utkarsha, Plot No.14, Yogi Arbindo Society, Sahakar Nagar-2, Pune- 411009. Pan : Aalcs1473M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Sinha Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,43,35,511/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

this regard and therefore the Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.2,43,35,511/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ being unexplained cash credit shown in the balance sheet in the name of unsecured loan. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.12.2016 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings

R S Ispat Limited, Salt Lake vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

Rs.13,87,115/-. The AO also separately added sum of Rs.10,00,000/- received from M/s Maa Amba Towers Limited by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by this reassessment order dated 14.12.2018, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Limited,…Appellant Room No. 563, Marshall House, 33/1, N.S. Road, Dalhousie, G.P.O., Kolkata-700001, W.B. [Pan:Aabct2720Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

made with the stated company would be treated as a sham transaction and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- would be treated as unexplained cash credit, but the Director of the assessee-company failed to produce the Director of M/s. Pushker Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter a final show-cause ... Timbers & Packaging Pvt. Limited Pvt. Ltd. would not be treated as a sham transaction and why such amount would not be treated as unexplained cash credit. In reply, it was stated that the assessee-company has taken an unsecured loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from M/s. Pushker Trading & Holding

Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 672/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

amount of money received in the form of demonetized currency notes amounting to Rs. 10,07,14,500 is hereby treated as "Unexplained Cash Credit" in terms of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The assessee co-operative society having no authority to receive demonetized currency notes ... bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 10,07,14,500 during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, is therefore treated as "Unexplained Cash Credit" within the purview of Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Since in the instant case the addition

M/S. Muse Advertising and Media Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

also added sum of Rs.3,97,80,000/- which was received from M/s Finelink Suppliers Private Limited by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Rajasehar, Perambalur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69

documents. It was noted that substantive additions in respect of the alleged investments were made in the hands of the respective companies as unexplained cash credits. The AO, therefore, proceeded to make a protective addition of Rs.14,91,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee u/s.69 ... u/s.69 of the Act, observing that substantive additions had already been made in the hands of the respective companies in respect of unexplained cash credits. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition. We observed that the Ld.CIT(A) found that no substantive addition existed in the hands

Sneha Binoy Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Smit C. Jhaveri, CA a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra- CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

144B on 23.05.2023 at total income of Rs. 96,78,066/- after making an addition of Rs. 61,05,510/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 27.02.2024 after a delay of 250 days

Bona Terra Greenhouses LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2115/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

search, show-caused the Assessee vide show-cause notice dated 08/03/2021 “as to why the unsecured loans should not be considered as unexplained cash credits u/sec. 68 of the Act and subsequent interest paid, be disallowed as non- genuine expenditure”. 5. The Assessee in response to the said show-cause ... Assessee’s unaccounted income. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are treated as unexplained cash credits u/sec. 68 of the Act for the year under consideration, as the explanation offered by the Assessee is not satisfactory. The AO ultimately, made