← 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

ITO-33(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Urvi Realtors, Mumbai

ITA 987/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Gautam PurohitFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that no reply was received from Assessment Year: 2014-15 the parties except M/s Rajat Diamond against ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(a) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions were not established during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. The appellant prays

DCIT CC3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 999/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 5 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 ... Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 6 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000 substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been have been confirmed which includes

DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Alankit Exports Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2117/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 5 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 ... Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 6 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000 substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been have been confirmed which includes

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 5 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 ... Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 6 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000 substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been have been confirmed which includes

DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2115/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 5 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 ... Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 6 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000 substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been have been confirmed which includes

DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2114/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 5 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 in the hands of the accordingly made substantive additions u/s 68 ... Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 6 ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA NO. 2114/M/2019 & Four Ors. substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000 substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been have been confirmed which includes

Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT - 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 5,65,51,916/- after making addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of long term capital gains on sale of penny stock shares and addition u/s

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)
Section 68

make such enquiries in order to allay their suspicion. This in-action on the part of the NFAC and thereafter making the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act, cannot be countenanced. 25. Even the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to be empowered under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, to obtain ... examined and verified in the income tax assessments for the earlier years, and therefore the same is directed to be deleted, since no addition u/s 68 of the Act was legally permissible in the relevant AY 2018-19. (ii) With regard to the share premium of Rs.83,588/- received from

M/S. Navajyothi Trust, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Mysuru

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

ITA 688/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234Section 68

well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ... books of account, it was held that when Assessee already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present

Natik Isharat Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Shashank A. MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 115Section 263Section 44ASection 68

have been added u/s 68 of the Act & taxed applying section 115BBE of the Act. Since AO has not done so (made addition u/s 68 of the Act), he concluded that the AO has not made proper inquiry during the assessment proceedings which makes the order of the AO erroneous ... satisfied with the nature and source of credit entry has a discretion vested with him to make the addition u/s 68 or not. In this case, the AO after enquiry has not added Rs.4,28,264/- u/s 68 of the Act and instead added it as income from other sources

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7163/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

Bench, in view of retraction traction of statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to Jain, has restored the matter ... addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to the Assessing Officer for re the Assessing Officer for re-examination. 14. The Ld. DR could not controvert that there was limited time could not controvert that there was limited time could not controvert that there was limited time frame in which

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7162/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

Bench, in view of retraction traction of statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to Jain, has restored the matter ... addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to the Assessing Officer for re the Assessing Officer for re-examination. 14. The Ld. DR could not controvert that there was limited time could not controvert that there was limited time could not controvert that there was limited time frame in which

Sarvesh Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4634/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

Bench, in view of retraction traction of statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal statement by Sh. Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to Jain, has restored the matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to Jain, has restored the matter ... addition u/s 68 of the Act, back to the Assessing Officer for re the Assessing Officer for re-examination. 14. The Ld. DR could not controvert that there was limited time could not controvert that there was limited time could not controvert that there was limited time frame in which

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/MUM/2022[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

required as per law. 13. Having heard both parties and after perusal of records, we note that the AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act on cash deposits in three (3) bank accounts as noted (supra). Further, we note that the assessee appeared before the AO pursuant

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 30(3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

required as per law. 13. Having heard both parties and after perusal of records, we note that the AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act on cash deposits in three (3) bank accounts as noted (supra). Further, we note that the assessee appeared before the AO pursuant

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

required as per law. 13. Having heard both parties and after perusal of records, we note that the AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act on cash deposits in three (3) bank accounts as noted (supra). Further, we note that the assessee appeared before the AO pursuant

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Vishnu Textile Trade P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 2120/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vishnu Textile Trade P. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) A-21, Dhiraj Apatment, Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Poddar Road, Malad (E), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabck6554H Varad Vinayak Textiles Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Mezanine Office No.2 Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Sujata Chambers, Vs. Nariman Point, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccv1777G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

part of the said order is from Para 6.3.1 to 6.3.26 at pages 13 to 25. In the said appellate order, the substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been confirmed which Vishnu Textile Trade Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 11-12; Varad Vinayank Textiles ... part of the said order is from Para 6.3.1 to 6.3.26 at pages 13 to 25. In the said appellate order, the substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 13,05,00,000/- have been confirmed which includes the addition related to our assessee

DCIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 1877/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vishnu Textile Trade P. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) A-21, Dhiraj Apatment, Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Poddar Road, Malad (E), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabck6554H Varad Vinayak Textiles Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Mezanine Office No.2 Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Sujata Chambers, Vs. Nariman Point, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccv1777G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

part of the said order is from Para 6.3.1 to 6.3.26 at pages 13 to 25. In the said appellate order, the substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 1,60,00,000/- have been confirmed which Vishnu Textile Trade Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 11-12; Varad Vinayank Textiles ... part of the said order is from Para 6.3.1 to 6.3.26 at pages 13 to 25. In the said appellate order, the substantive additions u/s 68 made of Rs 13,05,00,000/- have been confirmed which includes the addition related to our assessee

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

addition of ₹94,49,009/- because of receipts credited to the bank account deleted the addition. c. On account of addition u/s 68 of The Act of loan liability of ₹11,83,92,694/-, the addition was deleted. He noted that bank loans of ₹6,91,91,053/- cannot ... party or do not confirm the amount. Reasons given by the learned CIT – for deleting addition are not germane to the addition u/s 68 of the act. 011. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the paper book

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1064/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

addition of ₹94,49,009/- because of receipts credited to the bank account deleted the addition. c. On account of addition u/s 68 of The Act of loan liability of ₹11,83,92,694/-, the addition was deleted. He noted that bank loans of ₹6,91,91,053/- cannot ... party or do not confirm the amount. Reasons given by the learned CIT – for deleting addition are not germane to the addition u/s 68 of the act. 011. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the paper book