← 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

Kamla Landmarc Infra, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1628/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1626 To 1632/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Infra बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk9340C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /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 10.01.2019 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. 2. Before We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ay’S. The Assessee Is A Primarily

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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... loan of Rs.10,33,150/- and the addition on account of notional commission of Rs.9,00,000/- paid for obtaining such loan. Similar additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of further fresh loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and notional commission expense of Rs.50,000/- in relation thereto

Kamla Landmarc Infra, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1626 To 1632/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Infra बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk9340C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /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 10.01.2019 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. 2. Before We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ay’S. The Assessee Is A Primarily

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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... loan of Rs.10,33,150/- and the addition on account of notional commission of Rs.9,00,000/- paid for obtaining such loan. Similar additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of further fresh loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and notional commission expense of Rs.50,000/- in relation thereto

Kamla Landmarc Infra, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1626/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1626 To 1632/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Landmarc Infra बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk9340C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /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 10.01.2019 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. 2. Before We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ay’S. The Assessee Is A Primarily

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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... loan of Rs.10,33,150/- and the addition on account of notional commission of Rs.9,00,000/- paid for obtaining such loan. Similar additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of further fresh loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and notional commission expense of Rs.50,000/- in relation thereto

Kamla Park Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1618/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1616 To 1618 & 1620 To 1621/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Kamla Park Developers बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk7627G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 07.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 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 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 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kamla Park Developers according to him, the assessee ... 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 A.Ys

Kamla Park Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1616/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1616 To 1618 & 1620 To 1621/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Kamla Park Developers बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk7627G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 07.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 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 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 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kamla Park Developers according to him, the assessee ... 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 A.Ys

Kamla Landmarc Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1608/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.1608 & 1612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2012-13) Kamlalandmarc Estate बनाम/ 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. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk1567A (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Shri Rashmikant Modi Assessee By: Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 07-01-2019 For A.Ys. 2008- 09 & Ay. 2012-13. Since Issues Involved Are Common, Both These Appeals For The Two 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 These Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 68

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

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1384/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

However since the AO did not receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03- proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the he , 2016 Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature ... 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

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1383/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

However since the AO did not receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03- proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the he , 2016 Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature ... 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

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1382/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

However since the AO did not receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03- proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the he , 2016 Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature ... 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

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1381/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

However since the AO did not receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03- proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the he , 2016 Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature ... 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

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1380/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

However since the AO did not receive any explanation on or before the specified due date i.e. 01-03- proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the he , 2016 Act in the relevant AY 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature ... 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 Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1286/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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 Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1285/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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 Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1284/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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 Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirle-(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1283/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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 Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1282/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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 Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1281/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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 Ankur, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1280/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.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture 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. :Aaifk4902H (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 24.12.2018 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 2008-09, since according to him, the assessee failed to prove the nature and the source of the credit entries ... their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 Kamla Ankur Ventures 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Runwal Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the additions in all the 3 assessment years deleted by Ld. CIT (A) are confirmed and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5970/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5970/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6027/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 68

Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3)/153A. 2. In all the revenue’s appeal, one common issue relates to addition u/s 68 on account of introduction of share capital and share premium amount from M/s IRF Realty India IX Ltd. The additions involved ... explanation given by the assessee as incorporated 9 I.T.A. No. 5970/Mum/2017 & Others M/s Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd in the impugned order has made addition u/s 68 in the 3 assessment years in the following manner:- 4.19. In view of the above discussion, the above mentioned amount

M/S. B B Jewellers and Finance Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 557/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Madhusudhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 68

Rs.30 lakh is prima facie already included in Rs.3.88 crore 10 ITA No.557/Bang/2022. M/s.B.B.Jewellers and Finance Private Limited. while the A.O. making the addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly