← 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

Harsha Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is hereby allowed

ITA 439/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 68

assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: It is observed that AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act for loan take n from various companies which were managed by Mr.Shirish Shah and his group to provide accommodative entries ... 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

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR
Section 132(4)

However, the Ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee 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

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR
Section 132(4)

However, the Ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee 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

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR
Section 132(4)

However, the Ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee 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

Sagar Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR
Section 132(4)

However, the Ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee 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

Sagar Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR
Section 132(4)

However, the Ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee 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

Sagar Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR
Section 132(4)

However, the Ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee 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 Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

Estate Pvt. Ltd. explain the nature and source of the alleged share application money of Rs.1,76,57,500/- completed the assessment making addition under section 68 of the Act for the alleged sum and assessed the income at Rs.1,76,57,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ... sister concern having sufficient creditworthiness and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and confirmed the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting addition under section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of this Tribunal reads as under:- “6. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record

Madapura vs. Sbn, Kodaguvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 705/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shamala D.D, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

mandatory rather directory in nature, on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Without prejudice and conceding that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not warranted, the learned assessing officer is not justified in taxing the entire sum appearing in the balance sheet and the only ... year 2020- 21 on 13.09.2022 by disallowing the claim of deduction under section 8OP of the Act of Rs.36,03,000/- & by making addition under section 68 of the Act of Rs.21,15,027/- ( 17,67,740+3,47,287). The assessee filed an appeal on 15.02.2023, resulting

Mohamed Imran Mohamed Siddique Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2900/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

Appellant most humbly prays that the impugned order under Section 144 read with Section 147 should be set aside 3. Ground No. 3. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Om Shanti Reltors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-20(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4113/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanom Shanti Realtors Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- Omkar House, Off Eastern 20(2)(3) Highway, Opp. Sion Chunnabhatti 2Nd Floor, 210, Piramal Signal, Sion East, Mumbai – 400 Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 022. 400 012. Pan: Aabfo1844K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee to show that the parties from whom the unsecured loans were taken and interest was paid are genuine and creditworthy and the addition under section 68 of "the Act" was not warranted in the absence of Om Shanti Realtors contrary material having not brought on record by the revenue ... parties are not available or not responding as is observed by the Ld. AO and said fact has been made basis of addition under section 68 of "the Act" which has no legal basis. iv. Two paper books have been submitted during arguments by the assessee/appellant

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Gold Star Amco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1198/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

necessary onus in terms of identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness of the said party and therefore there is no basis for making the addition under section 68 of the Act. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case

M/S Gold Star Amco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

necessary onus in terms of identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness of the said party and therefore there is no basis for making the addition under section 68 of the Act. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in sustaining the additions under section 68 & 69C of the Act overlooking the major facts and submissions that the assessee is an investor and made purchase & sale of shares through ... share prices. held said transaction as bogus and having been done to convert unaccounted money of assessee to accounted income and, therefore, made addition under section 68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and Ketan Harilal Mehta, HUF,Mumbai. contract note showed credit/details of share transactions

Rushikesh Jagdishchandra Naik, Ghatkopar (East) vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4850/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Rushikesh Jagdishchandra Naik 10 2Nd Floor, Sandeep Building Income Tax Officer Tilak Nagar, Ward No.16(3)(1) M.P. Vaidya Marg, Ghatkopar Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. East, Rajawadi S.O. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 077 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapn7066R : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

thus the addition under Section 69 of the Act of unexplained investment in equity shares of ₹1,01,28,895/- and deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Act of ₹1,01,80,102/- on account of unexplained sale of equity Rushikesh Jagdishchandra nail; A.Y. 2013-14 shares. Accordingly

Multi Dimensional Asset & Wealth Creation LLP ( Eariler Multi-Dimensional Asset & Wealth Creation Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 4349/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Multi Dimensional Asset & Wealth Creation Llp ( Earlier Ito Multi Dimensional Asset & Ward 10(2)(4) Wealth Creation Private Room No.213, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, C/408, Shirin Sohrab Palace, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point East, Mumbai-400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm7603Q

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 68

section 147 of the Act was passed on 16th December, 2016, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹62,93,206/-. The addition under Section 68 of the Act on account of accommodation entry of ₹60 lacs was made to the total income of the assessee. 04. The assessee

Income Tax Oficer, Bc Bazar vs. The Kesri Union Farmers Service Co-Op Society Ltd, Ambala

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/CHANDI/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2Section 3Section 5

buttress his arguments that assessee society ought not to have taken old notes at all. Therefore Ld. AO is fully justified in making addition under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,35,30,500/- and his order be upheld and order

Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed, and the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted

ITA 252/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain The Income Tax Officer 1 Bharatnagar Society, Vs Ward-1(2)(1), Sahapur Dudheshwar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380004 Gujarat Pan: Aprpj3999P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinit Mundra, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19-12- 2023 Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”, Which Dismissed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Adding Cash Deposits In The Bank During The Demonetization Period As Unexplained Cash Under Section 68 R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred A “The Act”) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of The Appeal: Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mundra, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

same in bank account as she was unable to do so. The AR argued that the cash deposit was duly explained, and the addition under section 68 was unwarranted. 8. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions ... explanation provided. The AO’s action of disregarding this evidence Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 5 and making an addition under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE without proper verification is not justified. 11. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hak Hiring Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3872/MUM/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer,Ward-12(2)(1), Room No.145, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 --- Appellant Vs. Hak Hiring Pvt. Ltd. 606, Diago D. Sherly Rajan Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Aabch-2001-C --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Chhajed
Section 143Section 148Section 68

show receipt of deposits from public. Under these set of facts, the learned CIT(A) held that the question of making addition under section 68 of the Act will not arise. Since the books of accounts and bank account to not show receipt of money of Rs. 5.00 crores