← 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

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 308/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

Agricultural income declared by assessee 12,00,000/- Rs.14,06,026/- treated as non-agricultural income out of the above 3. Addition u/s 68 of the Act 2,36,34,000/- 4. Disallowance of expenditure debited to the P&L 2,74,094/- account, total expenditure debited

K. G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

Agricultural income declared by assessee 12,00,000/- Rs.14,06,026/- treated as non-agricultural income out of the above 3. Addition u/s 68 of the Act 2,36,34,000/- 4. Disallowance of expenditure debited to the P&L 2,74,094/- account, total expenditure debited

DCIT, CC - 5(3), Mumbai vs. Alag Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6684/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

certain enquiries and came to the conclusion that lender companies are non-existent and accordingly, issued show cause notice to the assessee why addition u/s. 68 of the Act should be made. In response assessee has submitted loan confirmation documents and no 3 ITA.NO. 6684/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Alag ... Officer after considering the affidavits and communication submitted by the assessee came to the conclusion that lender companies are non-existent, accordingly, made addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. Further, Assessing Officer after observing AIR information that assessee had purchased land

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Ground No. 1]. On the other hand, the assessee is in appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of upholding addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.6,22,05,000/- [Ground Nos. 1(a), 2(a), 3 to 8]. 6. Assailing the action ... these shareholders could not place any credible evidence to prove that they were in genuine business activity, the AO had rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. In support of the action of the AO, the Ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the judgment

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Ground No. 1]. On the other hand, the assessee is in appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of upholding addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.6,22,05,000/- [Ground Nos. 1(a), 2(a), 3 to 8]. 6. Assailing the action ... these shareholders could not place any credible evidence to prove that they were in genuine business activity, the AO had rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. In support of the action of the AO, the Ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the judgment

Smt. Raju Paruthi, L/R of Late Sri. Vinod Kumar Paruthi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 687/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 251Section 68

ground No.7 is with regard to disallowance of interest on creditors. This is consequential in nature as the issue relating to the quantum addition u/s 68 of the Act is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A). This issue is also remitted to Ld. Smt. Raju Paruthi, Bengaluru Page

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmisson Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll .CIT - RG. 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR
Section 250

liabilities in question pertained to the earlier years, it was, thus, concluded by the CIT(A) that by no means an addition u/s 68 could have been made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under: Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2782/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR
Section 250

liabilities in question pertained to the earlier years, it was, thus, concluded by the CIT(A) that by no means an addition u/s 68 could have been made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under: Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Haresh A. Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr.Krunal H. Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is Allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6334/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit-1(3) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Late Shri Haresh Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr. Krunal H. Dhakan, A-304, Classique Centre, Plot No. 26, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aadpd5584B ........Respondent Dcit-1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sss Sai Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. A-304, Classique Centre, Plot No. 26, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aalcs4908D ........Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Anil S. Sant, Sr.Dr Respondent By : Sh. Vinod Bindal With Sh. Gaurav Bansal (Ay- 2007-08 & 2011-12) Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil S. Sant, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Bindal with Sh. Gaurav Bansal
Section 131Section 133A

Since the assessee did not participate before the AO during assessment proceedings, the AO had no other alternative but to make addition u/s 68 of the Act for Ay 2007-08 to 2013-14 on the basis of the admission/surrender during survey. For AY 2007-08, the AO had made

ACIT Central Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2238/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

ACIT Central Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

ACIT Cent. Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2223/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

ACIT Cent. Cir -4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2221/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1497/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1496/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1495/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1494/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1493/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1492/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

establish the fact that in fact these transactions are non-genuine but merely relied upon the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. No doubt the A.O is having every right to suspect the transaction s but, that they itself would not give rise

Suncap Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4953/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suncap Commodities Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income-Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), 302, 3Rd Floor, Kumar Plaza, 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Kalina Kurla Road, Near Vs. Bhavan, Mk Road, Kalina Masid, Santacruz Mumbai-400 020 (East), Mumbai-400 029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn2950K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 63Section 68

authority. Therefore the AO held that the amount of above loan of ₹ 21 crores assigned by Falcon tyres Ltd is non-genuine. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 was made. 04. Similarly, M/s Dunlop India Ltd had assigned a loan of Stephen financial services private limited to the assessee, being interest free ... along with reserve and surplus of Rs 190 crores which forms of security premium of ₹ 188.10 crores. Accordingly assessing officer also made an addition u/s 68 of the income tax act of ₹ 504,157,505/– with respect to the about transaction. 05. Accordingly the total income was computed