← 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

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1048/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2010-11, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... orders in the cases of the concerns belonging to Kamala Landmarc Group i.e. M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC - 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1047/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2010-11, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... orders in the cases of the concerns belonging to Kamala Landmarc Group i.e. M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1046/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2010-11, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... orders in the cases of the concerns belonging to Kamala Landmarc Group i.e. M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4443/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He KamlaShanti

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4442/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He KamlaShanti

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4441/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He KamlaShanti

Kamla Shanti Developers P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He KamlaShanti

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4390/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4389/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4388/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4387/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4386/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4385/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT ()()-CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4384/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2009-10, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamla Shanti Ladmarc Property P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4383/MUM/2019[2014*15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4382/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4381/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4380/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4379/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4378/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03-2016, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... passed similar assessment orders in the cases of their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others, in which similar additions u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans, disallowance of interest u/s 37, addition of notional commission, disallowance of other expenses etc. were made by the AO. He brought