← All Phrases

“addition under section 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,640 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition under section 68 is CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), cited in 1,579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition under section 68

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

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.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

Judgments citing addition under section 68

L B Saree Emporium, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

supporting the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material placed before us. The addition under section 68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained unsecured loans and disallowance of interest paid on such alleged unsecured loans is in dispute before ... assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the addition under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,26,50,000/- on account of three reasons, firstly some on the basis of A.O’s analysis, some on the basis of wrong PAN and some for no PAN. The details

Oasis Jewels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the amount on which the Assessing Officer has made addition under Section 68 of the Act has been duly explained by the assessee which forms part of sales accounted in the books of account ... relates to ground no.3, the Ld. AR submitted that the commission paid for so called accommodation entry will not be suffice as the addition under Section 68 allegedly made by the Assessing Officer has been very well explained by the assessee through documentary evidences and, therefore, the question of commission

Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 69A

statutory provisions, the consequences will be only under the relevant provisions of RBI Act, 1934 and those violations cannot lead to any addition under section 68 of the Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts of the case as that

Kalpesh Vaghasia, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 214/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 215/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) Kalpesh Vaghasia Vs. Ito-32(2)(2) 7Th Floor, 701, Kings Kautilya Bhavan Apartment, Juhu Tara Mumbai. Road, Mumbai-400 049. Pan : Aaepv7332E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prateek Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 O R D E R 1. These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 & 2010 – 11 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Were Disposed Of Ex Party Which Were Filed Against Assessment Order Is Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act For Both The Years On 27/12/2016. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 Shows That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income. Subsequently The Information Was Received That Assessee Has Indulged In A Share Trading Activities In The Shares Of Caplin Point & Has Earned Short-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 598,630/– Long-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 51,709/– & Loss Of ₹ 2,393,177/– From Future & Option Transactions. However As Per The Broker Note The Assessee Has Made A Short-Term Capital Gain Of ₹ 191,103. Further The Future & Option Transactions Also Needs

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

under section 144 of the act wherein he made an addition to the extent of ₹ 191,103/– as short-term capital gain and addition under section 68 of the act of ₹ 4,250,000. Thus the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 4,441,100 by the assessment

Kalpesh Vaghasia, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 214/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 215/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) Kalpesh Vaghasia Vs. Ito-32(2)(2) 7Th Floor, 701, Kings Kautilya Bhavan Apartment, Juhu Tara Mumbai. Road, Mumbai-400 049. Pan : Aaepv7332E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prateek Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 O R D E R 1. These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 & 2010 – 11 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Were Disposed Of Ex Party Which Were Filed Against Assessment Order Is Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act For Both The Years On 27/12/2016. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 Shows That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income. Subsequently The Information Was Received That Assessee Has Indulged In A Share Trading Activities In The Shares Of Caplin Point & Has Earned Short-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 598,630/– Long-Term Capital Loss Of ₹ 51,709/– & Loss Of ₹ 2,393,177/– From Future & Option Transactions. However As Per The Broker Note The Assessee Has Made A Short-Term Capital Gain Of ₹ 191,103. Further The Future & Option Transactions Also Needs

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

under section 144 of the act wherein he made an addition to the extent of ₹ 191,103/– as short-term capital gain and addition under section 68 of the act of ₹ 4,250,000. Thus the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 4,441,100 by the assessment

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4004/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi-CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 694Section 69C

therefore, there cannot be any addition towards the same. The AO however did not accept the submissions of the assessee and made the addition under section 68 of the Act treating the impugned transaction of Rs. 1,45,000/- as fictitious and made addition under section 68

Shrey Associates, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

26. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, finding merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee as regards the only challenge to the addition of Rs

ITA 127/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (I.T.P.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

already assessed as business income, adding the same amount as unexplained cash credits would lead to double taxation. Therefore, in that case, the addition under Section 68 of the Act was deemed inappropriate. 24. Herein, Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to explain source of money. Accordingly

Annasaheb Ganpat Khatal, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result ground number one of the appeals is allowed with above direction

ITA 869/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

same has preferred this appeal raising the issue that appeal has been decided ex parte and Page 1 of 5 further the addition under section 68 of the act of Rs. 2,264,200 was also confirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case show that the assessee ... cash in his bank of India account, which was not explained and therefore the learned assessing officer made the addition under section 68 of the income tax act of the above sum and passed order under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act at a total income

Kanji Ganesh Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1186/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Kanji Ganesh Patel Huf Vs. Ito, Ward 22(2)(1) 1905 Building No. 3 Piramal Chamber Raheja Classique Lalbaug, Parel Oshiwara, New Link Road, Mumbai-400 012. Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Aaghk3564D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Kanji Ganesh Patel Huf (Assessee/Appellant) Against Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2014 – 15 Dated 16/1/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 22 (2) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Same & Has Preferred Appeal Raising Solitary Ground About Addition Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act Wherein The Exemption Under Section 10 (1) Of Agricultural Income Was Denied To The Assessee Of Rs. 2,748,802/–. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Huf Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/7/2014 At A Total Income Of Rs. 321,608/- In The Return Of Income Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10 Page 1 Of 5

Section 10Section 143Section 68

Mumbai (the learned AO) was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred appeal raising solitary ground about addition under section 68 of the income tax act wherein the exemption under section 10 (1) of agricultural income was denied to the assessee

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

extraordinary performance of its stock - Thus, he concluded that assessee had adopted a colourable device of LTCG to avoid tax and, accordingly, made addition under section 68 treating such LTCG arose on sale of such shares as bogus It was noted that there was no dispute that shares of said ... convert unaccounted money of assessee to accounted income and, 38 ITA. No. 4543/MUM/2023 (A.Y.: 2011-12) Jitendra udaylal Jain, Mumbai. therefore, made addition under section 68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and contract note showed credit/details of share transactions; and that revenue had stopped inquiry

ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi vs. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7881/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Montage Enterprises Pvt. Acit Ltd., C-53, Shashi Garden, Central Circle- 27 Near Pocket-5, Gurudwara New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Montage Enterprises Pvt. Central Circle- 27 Ltd., C-53, Shashi Garden, New Delhi Near Pocket-5, Gurudwara Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

submission of the appellant, I find that the appellant has explained the nature and source of the impugned cash balance, therefore, making addition under section 68 was not justified. 16. Assessee has explained the nature and source of the impugned cash balance therefore addition made by AO was rightly deleted

Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7443/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Montage Enterprises Pvt. Acit Ltd., C-53, Shashi Garden, Central Circle- 27 Near Pocket-5, Gurudwara New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Montage Enterprises Pvt. Central Circle- 27 Ltd., C-53, Shashi Garden, New Delhi Near Pocket-5, Gurudwara Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

submission of the appellant, I find that the appellant has explained the nature and source of the impugned cash balance, therefore, making addition under section 68 was not justified. 16. Assessee has explained the nature and source of the impugned cash balance therefore addition made by AO was rightly deleted

Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted I.T.A No. 1199/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 19 Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT addition under section 68 made to assessee's income on account of cash receipts in its bank account by accepting assessee's explanation that said amount ... share capital/premium, however there was failure of assessee to establish creditworthiness of investor companies, Assessing Officer was justified in passing assessment order making additions under section 68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. 27 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gayathri Associates

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 403/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

order of the AO by giving detailed finding with the reasons by observing as under: It is observed that AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act for loan taken from various companies which were managed by Mr.Shirish Shah and his group to provide accommodative entries. The above ... entries were explained by Mr. Shirish Shah and Mr. Praveen Jain and such facts are elaborately discussed herein above. It is observed that addition under Section 68 of the Act made in the hands of Mr. Pavan Sanghvi was also confirmed by Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT, as discussed herein above

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

order of the AO by giving detailed finding with the reasons by observing as under: It is observed that AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act for loan taken from various companies which were managed by Mr.Shirish Shah and his group to provide accommodative entries. The above ... entries were explained by Mr. Shirish Shah and Mr. Praveen Jain and such facts are elaborately discussed herein above. It is observed that addition under Section 68 of the Act made in the hands of Mr. Pavan Sanghvi was also confirmed by Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT, as discussed herein above

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

order of the AO by giving detailed finding with the reasons by observing as under: It is observed that AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act for loan taken from various companies which were managed by Mr.Shirish Shah and his group to provide accommodative entries. The above ... entries were explained by Mr. Shirish Shah and Mr. Praveen Jain and such facts are elaborately discussed herein above. It is observed that addition under Section 68 of the Act made in the hands of Mr. Pavan Sanghvi was also confirmed by Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT, as discussed herein above

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 400/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

order of the AO by giving detailed finding with the reasons by observing as under: It is observed that AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act for loan taken from various companies which were managed by Mr.Shirish Shah and his group to provide accommodative entries. The above ... entries were explained by Mr. Shirish Shah and Mr. Praveen Jain and such facts are elaborately discussed herein above. It is observed that addition under Section 68 of the Act made in the hands of Mr. Pavan Sanghvi was also confirmed by Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT, as discussed herein above

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

order of the AO by giving detailed finding with the reasons by observing as under: It is observed that AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act for loan taken from various companies which were managed by Mr.Shirish Shah and his group to provide accommodative entries. The above ... entries were explained by Mr. Shirish Shah and Mr. Praveen Jain and such facts are elaborately discussed herein above. It is observed that addition under Section 68 of the Act made in the hands of Mr. Pavan Sanghvi was also confirmed by Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT, as discussed herein above

M/S. Mahaveera Minority Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Vijayanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

ITA 528/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68

No.599/Bang/2023 (Order dated 30.10.2023). It was submitted that the sole reason for both AO and the CIT(A) making / sustaining the addition under section 68 of the Act was that subsequent to 08.11.2016, the SBNs were not legal tender and assessee was not authorized person to collect SBNs ... supported the orders of the Income Tax authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The addition under section 68 of the Act was made by the AO solely for the reason that assessee had accepted SBNs during the demonetization period. It was further

DCIT, Central Circal-6, New Delhi vs. Dipankar Pal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1014/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Central Circle-06, Vs. Shri Dipankar Pal, New Delhi-1100 92 Cj-231, Sector 11, Salt Lake City, Kolkata

Section 143(1)Section 68

resident, when introduced in the capital account during the year could not have been considered, as unexplained cash credits, for an addition under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof of the source of these cash credit entries in the accounts of assessee