← All Phrases

“addition u/s 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,598 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition u/s 68 is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), cited in 854 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition u/s 68

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. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

1) CIT v. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (
151 ITR 150 · 1985 · High Court
79
citing judgments

The assessee's burden under Section 68 to prove cash credits is discharged by establishing the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction; the assessee is not required to prove the creditor's source of funds or creditworthiness, as the department can use Section 131 for further investigation.

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT
206 ITR 718 · 1994 · High Court
77
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

Hastimal v. CIT
49 ITR 273 · 1963 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra
301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court
47
citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

Judgments citing addition u/s 68

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

taxmann.com 385 wherein as per the assessee it was held that where the Assessing Officer had passed a contradictory order by making addition u/s 68 holding that books of accounts were not reliable, while deciding issue of sundry creditors, but relied upon for accepting profit shown to be correct which ... supported by books of accounts, addition u/s 68 was not justified. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “3. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee- assessee discharged all its obligations to justify the entries made in the books of account showing the credit

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

taxmann.com 385 wherein as per the assessee it was held that where the Assessing Officer had passed a contradictory order by making addition u/s 68 holding that books of accounts were not reliable, while deciding issue of sundry creditors, but relied upon for accepting profit shown to be correct which ... supported by books of accounts, addition u/s 68 was not justified. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “3. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee- assessee discharged all its obligations to justify the entries made in the books of account showing the credit

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Systematix Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-2(3)(1), M/S Systematix Holding R.No. 552, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, J K Somani Bldg. Mumbai-400020. British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaics 4642 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Kabra Revenue By : Dr. Koshor Dule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Dr. Koshor Dule, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

record. The issue in M/s Systematix Holding 5 M/s Systematix Holding ITA No. No. 470/M/2023 dispute involved is dispute involved is regarding addition u/s 68 of the Act for addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that there was an unexplained cash

Lenient Consultants P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 1704/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 251(1)Section 68

that is without valid/requisite mandatory SCN/ “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE as per CBDT instruction no. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 (which is firmly established when main addition u/s 68 of Rs 87,77,45,000 is tested on elementary terra-firma of sec. 68) 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Swami Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 22(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 8071/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaswami Advertising Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., R. P. Basia & Co., Ward – 22(4) Cas, 11, Central Market, New Delhi Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110 052 Pan No. Aapcs 2950 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2023

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

noted that notices issued u/s 133(3) of the Act to the investors were not responded by the investors. The AO therefore made addition u/s 68 of the Act. CIT(A) while upholding the order of AO has noted that no details to substantiate its case has been furnished

Gulshan Investment Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-10(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7679/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us. We Deem It Fit To Address This Preliminary Ground First.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO dismissing the entire submissions of the assessee proceeded to make addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of profit derived from derivative transactions in the sum of Rs.1,79,21,950/- by treating it as accommodation

Seemax Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8707/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ramakant, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

order exparte. We do not find any merit in this ground and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 20. In so far as the addition u/s 68 is concerned, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given a judicious finding, which is evident from the fact that he has deleted

Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 2423/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 68

68 of the Act viz., identify of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Hence, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act for the same. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made on account of unsecured loan

Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 2422/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 68

68 of the Act viz., identify of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Hence, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act for the same. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made on account of unsecured loan

Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 2421/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 68

68 of the Act viz., identify of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Hence, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act for the same. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made on account of unsecured loan

Ace Property Developers, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 207/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसुं.207/भ ुं/2023 (यन.ि. 2014-15) Ace Property Developers, A Wing, ‘ Taal’ Building No.6, Hdil Layout, Sector No.2, Chikhal Dongre Road, Global City, Virar (West), Palghar 401 303 Pan: Aasfa-3204-E ...... अऩीराथी/Appellant फनाभ Vs. Jt. Cit 24(1) Mumbai. ..... प्रयतिादी/Respondent अऩीराथी द्िाया/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Sukanya Jayaram प्रयतिादी द्िाया/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Ar स निाई की यतधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2023 घोषणा की यतधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 40Section 68

Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14(supra). 6. In ground No.2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unproved unsecured loans. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee had furnished confirmations from the parties along ... Assessing Officer, however, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings they remain to be considered by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the similar reasons as were stated by the Assessing Officer. Taking into account entire facts of the case

Rajvinder Kaur Balraj Singh Mahal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 352/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalerajvinder Kaur Balraj Vs. Cit(A), Singh Mahal, Nfac, Groundno.6,Chawlno.82, New Delhi. Room No.19,79, Tagornagar,Vikhroli(E), Mumbai-400083. Pan/Gir No. : Ciqpm2579G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr Chintanshah & Mr.Hardikvora. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2023 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), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr ChintanShah &For Respondent: Mr.Rajendra Chandekar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

following grounds of appeal: Ground No. 1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld A.O and made Addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act1961 of Rs. 12,56,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs fifty six thousand) as unexplained cash credit without considering the explanations provided

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rps Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2781/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S. Rps Infra Central Circle 5(1), Projects Pvt Ltd., Room No. 1928, C, 113 Shyam Kamal, 19Th Floor, Airindiabldg, 27, Tejpal Road, Nariman Point, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr3607E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dr. Kishor Dhule Cit-Dr & Smt. Neeraja Sharma.Dr Respondent By : Shri. Jp Bairagra, Shri Ashiskumar Bairagra & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar. Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dr. Kishor Dhule CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri. JP Bairagra
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

same was deleted in AY 2014-15 ignoring the fact that for the AY 2014-15, the Ld CIT(A) had confirmed the addition u/s 68 on account of interest from M/s Kothari Impex.? "The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter

Alanice Computer Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktiit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 68Section 69C

made addition of to the returned Income of the assessee as under- Particulars Amount (in) Amount (in) Returned Income NIL Add: Addition u/s 68 of the Act 20,19,23,500 Addition u/s 69C of the Act 40,38,470 20,59,61,970/- Assessed Income

ITO3(1), Indore vs. K. K. Patel Finance Ltd., Morena

ITA 988/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(1) K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Indore 44, Jiwaji Ganj, बनाम/ Gandhi Aushdhalaya Road, Vs. Morena (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabck 4282 G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 68

treated the share-application money as ingenuine and made addition. The observations made by AO in this regard are extracted below: “4. Addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. :- 4.1 It is also seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee has taken share application money from various applicants

Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The Addl. CIT Range-3, Indore

ITA 652/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia Addl. Cit, Range-3 8/5, Bcc House Indore बनाम/ Manoramaganj Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agjpb 0022 G Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Durga Prasad More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC). With such observations, Ld. AO made addition u/s 68. 6. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) marshalled the facts from assessment- order and observed in the opening Para No. 4.1.1. of his order that the AO has made additions mainly because ... point submissions; we sum up thus: (i) He submitted that both of the lower authorities are mainly influenced by the reasoning that the addition u/s 68 qua the share-capital received from above 3 companies, made by AO in the case of assessee’s group company M/s BCC Cargo

Dy CIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Manan Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 864/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Cit Cc 1(1), M/S Manan Trading 9Th Flr., 903, Pratishtha Bhavan, Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Old Cgo Bldg. (Anneexe), 325 Amrut Diamond House, M.K. Road, Tata Road No. 1, Opera Mumbai-400020. House, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aadcm 5896 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mani Jain/ Mr. Prateek Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain/For Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Rs.20,92,63,170/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition u/s . The Assessing Officer also made addition u/s . The Assessing Officer also made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of creditor 68 of the Act in respect of creditor namely M/s Jayant M/s Jayant Oil Products Ltd. amounting

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4764/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)
Section 68

despite being asked to file the same. Since, assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of credit entry, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.6.50 crores. Aggrieved, assessee 6 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd. preferred an appeal before ... have seen that it has creditworthiness to invest the same in assessee company and has proved its identity and genuineness; therefore no addition u/s 68 of the Act was warranted and so, Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted it. So we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) deleting Rs.6.5

Rajhans Infratech Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, appeal of assessee is allowed and impugned addition is deleted

ITA 2153/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2Nd Floor, Gk-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd0055F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

constituents are required to be cumulatively satisfied. If one or more of them is absent, then the AO can make the additions u/s 68 of the Act as an income. The fact remains that the company is private company in which public are not substantially interested these type of companies ... light of above facts and case laws as discussed above,I am of the considered view that the AO was justified to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, disallowance of Rs.1,75,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act made by the AO is confirmed. These grounds

Mukesh Soni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

made in law in respect of the same transaction once as sales forming part of trading account and again as disallowance/ addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. Reliance is placed in this regard on various judgments mentioned in the annexed list forming part of judicial pronouncements herewith