“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

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

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

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

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

Jayesh Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4212/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

requirement u/s 151 of the Act and without recording valid approval. Such reassessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Addition u/s 68 of Rs. 20.00.00/- 3.1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer by confirming unsecured loan received

Bhagatram Godhwani, Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 364/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Assessing Officer was justified in added the amounts to the appellant's income of Rs.25,00,000/- Therefore, addition u/s 68 of the Act is confirmed. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed.” Bhagatram Godhwani 17. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue

Promise Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1051/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Promise Securities Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito Ward-13(1)(4) 202 Hemlok Apartment 87 Room No.216-B, Aayakar Vs. Kilachand Path, S.V. Road, Bhawan, M.K. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp6634N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2012- 13 & 2013-14. Ita. No.1051/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer is quite arbitrary, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. That the addition u/s 68 Rs.66,00,000/- is quite illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted unjustified and bad in law. 3. That the disallowance of interest expenses Rs.2,46,408/- is quite illegal

Asstt. CIT - CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mangal Buildhome P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 567/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.302, 3Rd Floor 903, 9Th Floor Chinatamani Arcade, Dhanji Street Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai - 400003 Old Cgo Building Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aapcs6589J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor A.1701-1702, Lotus Corporate Park Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pratishtha Bhavan Old Cgo Building Annexe Pan: Aagcm5420M Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor 202, 2Nd Floor Chinatamani Arcade Pratishtha Bhavan Opp. Bombay Bullion Building Old Cgo Building Annexe Dhanji Street, Mumbai - 400003 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcm2672M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

been decided by the Honble ITAT in which the sole statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain was not found justifiable to raise the addition u/s 68 of the Act. These are the following - cases 1. ITA No. 5589/M/2017 in case of ACIT Vs M.s Shreedham Builders 2. ITA No. 5954/M/2016

Asstt. CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 566/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

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

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

ITA 1676/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

which was reopened by AO on the basis of reasons which are factually incorrect. 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

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

amount of premium so received by the appellant @ Rs.2,000/- per share. Therefore, the AO is not justified in making the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. 7.5 The issue of premium has been dealt with by the recent instruction of CBDT (Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29.01.2015) which made

Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hosadurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Davanagere

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

ITA 646/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

income after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The A.O. however denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act and also made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly the AO determined the total income at Rs.30,66,060/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing appeal before

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

quantum and relatability of the amount to the impugned year is not according to the document and material. 4. Because the action for addition u/s 68 amounting Rs 10,00,000/- is being challenged on facts and law while all parameters for the provision of law required by assessee fulfilled ... 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 27. Ground of appeal no.15 relates to the benefit of telescoping of addition u/s 68, u/s 69C against additions on account out of bogus purchases. 28. After hearing both the sides, we find that it is the submission

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9154/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9153/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8908/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-2, Top Floor, Suneja Chamber, Circle-27(1), Alaknanda Commercial Complex, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,06,078/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 10.01.2018 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dcit, Central Circle (2), Mumbai Dated 5Th February, 2016 Wherein It Was Informed That Shri Shirish C. Shah, Who Happened To Be The Main Person Engaged In Providing Bogus Accommodation Entries Through The Companies Directly/Indirectly Controlled By Him & The Assessee Company Has Received Accommodation Entry Of Rs.25 Lakhs From M/S Dhanus Technologies Ltd., The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons And, Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- as the addition is not based on evidence, opposed to evidences on records, based

Opinder Singh Marwah, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 32(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed for

ITA 4660/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Section 68

account out of cash in hand. 10. That without prejudice to the above contentions, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition u/s 68 can be made for sums found credited in the books of the assessee. Amounts credited in the savings bank account, cannot be termed

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Luxora Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Kishore DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

were issued and served on the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act by making addition u/s. 68 of the Act and further additions were made relating to brokerage of ₹.1,30,00,000/-, sales and marketing at ₹.1,24,53,166/-, finance cost ... reproduced below for your honour's kind and ready reference: "2.4.3 Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are in respect of the merits of the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Ld. AO found that the appellant had issued 80,28,179 non-cumulative preference shares of face value Rs. I each

Accentor Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 6841/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6841/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Accentor Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 14B, First Floor, Rohtak Road, Ward-1(3), Manohar Park, New Delhi-110026 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca0931F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)

been proved and therefore, the AO has treated the unsecured loans as unexplained credits in the books of assessee and has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: “8. The AR's were asked to explain the reasons

Mre. Kranti Bagad, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 458/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Kranti Bagad, Vs. Dcit, Cc-1(1) 1302, Sidhivinayak 9Th Floor, Pratistha Chs Ltd, Plot No. 3, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg Sector – 14, Khanda Annexe, Mk Road, Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai – 400020. Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahppb2241N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.K.K.Mishra. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.K.K.Mishra. CIT.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

treat as undisclosed income. On the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 21,54,500/- though the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness are proved with the documentary evidence. The Ld.AR substantiated ... that no incriminating material was found during the search in respect of undisclosed income or unaccounted money where the A.O has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. We follow the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble High Court and are of the opinion that in the absence

Bharat Jha-HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-37(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6834/DEL/2019[2013+-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148Section 250Section 68

ITAT-2019(PUNE)] ii) Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi in the case of Anip Rastogi [TS-5007-ITAT- 2019(Delhi)] has upheld addition u/s 68 on account of credits arising on sale of penny stock on the ground that assessee had generated bogus entries of long term capital gains