← 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

Sri Ningappa Managuli, Hutti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

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

ITA 684/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 68Section 69A

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

Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1737/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue
Section 131Section 68

assessee is accepted under presumptive basis, the books of accounts of the assessee cannot be relied upon so as to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “4.7 To sum up, the cash deposits amounting to Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.11 lakhs ... which cannot be upheld. Being so, the assessment of the assessee to be made u/s 44AD of the Act and the addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 67/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

with the Honble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has filed the details in respect of the loans and submitted the confirmation ... heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect 14 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 of unsecured loan and interest on loan. We find that

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 66/MUM/2022[2013-14`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

with the Honble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has filed the details in respect of the loans and submitted the confirmation ... heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect 14 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 of unsecured loan and interest on loan. We find that

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 65/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

with the Honble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has filed the details in respect of the loans and submitted the confirmation ... heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect 14 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 of unsecured loan and interest on loan. We find that

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 64/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

with the Honble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has filed the details in respect of the loans and submitted the confirmation ... heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect 14 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 of unsecured loan and interest on loan. We find that

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby

ITA 1879/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1878 & 1879/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) Dcit-Cc 3(2) बिधम/ Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1913, Air India Mezanine Office No.2, Sujata Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Chambers, Narshi Natha Mumbai-400021. Street, Mumbai-400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc744Od (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Dated 29.01.2019 For A.Y. 2011-12 & For A.Y.2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices. The Ld. Cit Dr Has Brought To Our Notice Reports Submitted By Ao On The Lis, Which According To Us Will Be Sufficient To Dispose Of Both The Appeals Of Revenue. 3. For A.Y.2011-12, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.3,35,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Investment & Rs.9,30,500/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Commission U/S 69C Of The Act & For A.Y.2012-13, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.6,88,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

confirmed substantively by him vide order dated 03.11.2017 in the hands of the M/s. Bhagwat Textiles Pvt. Ltd while he confirmed the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.13,05,00,000/- [which included the addition related to that of the assessee to the tune ... case of M/s. Firstwinner Textile (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) noted that vide order dated 03.11.2017 he has confirmed the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.14,00,00,000/- which included the addition related to the assessee of Rs.50 lakhs. However

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby

ITA 1878/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1878 & 1879/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) Dcit-Cc 3(2) बिधम/ Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1913, Air India Mezanine Office No.2, Sujata Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Chambers, Narshi Natha Mumbai-400021. Street, Mumbai-400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc744Od (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Dated 29.01.2019 For A.Y. 2011-12 & For A.Y.2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices. The Ld. Cit Dr Has Brought To Our Notice Reports Submitted By Ao On The Lis, Which According To Us Will Be Sufficient To Dispose Of Both The Appeals Of Revenue. 3. For A.Y.2011-12, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.3,35,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Investment & Rs.9,30,500/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Commission U/S 69C Of The Act & For A.Y.2012-13, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.6,88,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

confirmed substantively by him vide order dated 03.11.2017 in the hands of the M/s. Bhagwat Textiles Pvt. Ltd while he confirmed the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.13,05,00,000/- [which included the addition related to that of the assessee to the tune ... case of M/s. Firstwinner Textile (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) noted that vide order dated 03.11.2017 he has confirmed the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.14,00,00,000/- which included the addition related to the assessee of Rs.50 lakhs. However

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6490/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

real sense at the time of registration but were specifically found to be non-existent, and despite the submission of above details addition u/s 68 is valid —if the lender concerns do not respond summons. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of amount advanced to assessee Thus, AO made addition u/s 68 as income from undisclosed sources CIT(A) deleted addition holding that source of cash creditors was not required to be proved by assessee once

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

real sense at the time of registration but were specifically found to be non-existent, and despite the submission of above details addition u/s 68 is valid —if the lender concerns do not respond summons. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of amount advanced to assessee Thus, AO made addition u/s 68 as income from undisclosed sources CIT(A) deleted addition holding that source of cash creditors was not required to be proved by assessee once

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders $ Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4105/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

real sense at the time of registration but were specifically found to be non-existent, and despite the submission of above details addition u/s 68 is valid —if the lender concerns do not respond summons. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of amount advanced to assessee Thus, AO made addition u/s 68 as income from undisclosed sources CIT(A) deleted addition holding that source of cash creditors was not required to be proved by assessee once

ITO-22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4096/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

real sense at the time of registration but were specifically found to be non-existent, and despite the submission of above details addition u/s 68 is valid —if the lender concerns do not respond summons. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of amount advanced to assessee Thus, AO made addition u/s 68 as income from undisclosed sources CIT(A) deleted addition holding that source of cash creditors was not required to be proved by assessee once

Asst CIT CC 5 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mansukh H Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7971/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. No.7971/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Cc-5(1), Mumbai.…………………….…………...……………..….. Appellant Vs. M/S Mansukh H Shah………………….……..….…..……………….…… Respondent 3, Kasamkhan Compound, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. [Pan: Anbps8109C] Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V. K. Chaturvedi Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 12, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 250

been able to discharge the onus to show identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions for loans totaling to Rs.66,00,000/-. The addition u/s 68 to this extent is upheld. Ground of appeal no.4 is partly allowed.” As noted above, the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the evidences furnished

M/S. Md. Noorudin Zaiwala, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1708/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S M.D. Noorudin Zariwala The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Prop. Mohd Noorudin Mondal) (Appeals)-Nfac, F Sector H-2 Line, Room No. 1, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Cheeta Camp, Trombay, Near Jama Masjid, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Afepg 6380 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Navin B. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

raising the following grounds: M/s M.D. Noorudian Zariwala 2 “Ground 1 The Hon'ble CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in confirming addition u/s 68 of unsecured loan received from the appellant's wife Mrs Firdos Mondal on the basis of peak credit as against the addition of closing balance ... therefore he had discharged his onus of establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and therefore no addition u/s 68 of the of the Act is justified. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition for the closing balance in the ledger account of M/s Firdos Mondal whereas

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

make any enquiry with the lender companies & merely, relied upon the Statement of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.4.1.9 The Ld AO also could not establish that the Appellant has routed his unaccounted cash in form of bogus accommodation ... discarding the evidence produced by the appellant. 2.4.1.10 At this Juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to various Judgments delivered in respect of additions u/s 68 of the Act as both the provisions of Section 68 as well Section. Once the onus that lay under Section 68

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

Shoba Gupta v. ITO in ITA No. 461/Hyd/2013 for AY 2009-10 has discussed this issue in detail and held that addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made along with estimation of income unless ITA No. 1484/M/2018 & ITA No. 487/M/2019 57 M/s Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. the assessee

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1321/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 68

paper-book. We have also deliberated on various judicial pronouncements as cited before us. We have already appreciated the settled legal position regarding addition u/s 68 as enumerated by us in the opening paragraphs. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs ... paper-book. We have also deliberated on various judicial pronouncements as cited before us. We have already appreciated the settled legal position regarding addition u/s 68 as enumerated by us in the opening paragraphs. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

Shoba Gupta v. ITO in ITA No. 461/Hyd/2013 for AY 2009-10 has discussed this issue in detail and held that addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made along with estimation of income unless ITA No. 1484/M/2018 & ITA No. 487/M/2019 57 M/s Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. the assessee

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1166/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Translands Infrastructure Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Developers P. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jn-3, 14-15, Aashirward Chs, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairaga, CA
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

which are factually incorrect. 3 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd. 5. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 made by AO in respect of amount of Rs.1,85,00,000 being share of profit in joint venture pertaining to last year

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

disposed off the objections raised by the assessee and the Assessing Officer after rejecting the submissions of the assessee proceeded to make the addition u/s. 68 of the Act to the extent of loan taken by the assessee from the three parties during this assessment year. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred ... Delhi in case of DWARKADHIS INVESTMENT(DEL)(5.1.7) held that department has all power to enforce presence of loan creditor. 5. Foundation of addition u/s 68, is finding OF INVESTIGATION WING in case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, as extensively quoted in order. Appellant supported genuineness and creditworthiness of three