← 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

Fusion Granito Private Limited, Morbi vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

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

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

cannot substitute his own view overriding the assessing officer’s satisfaction. Besides, this is first year incorporation, hence there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act. Based on these facts, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that order passed by the learned PCIT may be quashed. Fusion Granito

M/S Stanford Developers, Neemrana Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Behror

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

justifying the transactions with Shrey Associates leaves no scope for reversal of the addition. This Ground of Appeal is accordingly dismissed Findings: [ for Addition u/s 68 for capital contribution by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar (Rs. 15,74,99,500/-) The facts, issues and documents uploaded by the appellant have been ... u/s 143(3)/144B on 20/02/2021, determining total income of Rs. 16,12,90,311/- , inter-alia, by making the following additions :- 1 Addition u/s 68 by treating the credit balance with M/s Rs.92,13,534 Shrey Associates as unexplained cash credit. 2 Addition u/s 68 by treating the credit/capital

Mohit Garg, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(2), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5399/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishramohit Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, 14/13, Block-14, Shakti Nagar, . Ward 35(2) Delhipan: Aqypg7650G Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Uma Shankar, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

CASS. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 50,18,000/-on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization 2 MohitGarg

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Artex Textile Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

company which has been purchased through registered dealers by banking channel which is never in dispute in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 made on the basis of assumptions, premises, and conjectures alone {assumption that there cannot prevail over established evidence as contended by the appellant. The appellant ... reasoning smells foul of absurdity and irrationality of pretense only which can never partake the character of evidence in law, and that this addition u/s 68 would amount to double taxation deserves merit and due consideration. 5. 7. 18. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs

Jayesh Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

issue of dealing in penny stock transactions. In the instant case, High Court affirmed ITAT ruling wherein the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s addition u/s 68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim

Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

issue of dealing in penny stock transactions. In the instant case, High Court affirmed ITAT ruling wherein the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s addition u/s 68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

issue of dealing in penny stock transactions. In the instant case, High Court affirmed ITAT ruling wherein the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s addition u/s 68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

issue of dealing in penny stock transactions. In the instant case, High Court affirmed ITAT ruling wherein the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s addition u/s 68 in respect of share sale receipts from a penny stock treating the same as Income from Other Sources and thereby rejecting assessee's claim

Piyush Manilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2297/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarpiyush Manilal Mehta, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – G-404, Ashok Nagar, Bldg. बनाम 32(2)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, No. 3, Vazira Naka, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Borivali (West), Mumbai - (East), Mumbai 400051, 400 092, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm0861F .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

u/s 68 without appreciating that the assessee had established the identity genuineness and creditworthiness of the donor and hence the addition u/s 68 may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above, the addition u/s 68 may be restricted to the peak credit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld.AO of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, despite impliedly rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3). The addition so made is wrong in law as well as on the facts ... erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld.AO of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, despite impliedly rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3). The addition so made is wrong in law as well as on the facts

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 854/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.853/Ahd/2025 & 854/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Ramesh Babulal Patel The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Gayatri Industries, Ward-1 V/S. 271, Gidc Phase-2 Mehsana – 384 002 Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahhpp 4902 E (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

have escaped assessment in respect of the said transactions and therefore, the initiation of proceeding u/s 148 of the Act and consequent addition u/s 68 of the Act in case of appellant are invalid. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 853/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.853/Ahd/2025 & 854/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Ramesh Babulal Patel The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Gayatri Industries, Ward-1 V/S. 271, Gidc Phase-2 Mehsana – 384 002 Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahhpp 4902 E (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

have escaped assessment in respect of the said transactions and therefore, the initiation of proceeding u/s 148 of the Act and consequent addition u/s 68 of the Act in case of appellant are invalid. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

wasted page 30 to 63 (para 47 to para 102 of Calcutta High Court's order for addition u/s 68 of the Act) of the assessment order while the Assessing Officer's addition is not at all related with section 68 of the Act. From this type of attitude

M/S Real Time Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3290/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

sole purposes of providing accommodation entries.The directors could not be examined on accountof non production before the authorities concerned leading to similar addition u/s 68 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) took a view that the main person Sri Choksi had floated these companies was basically an entry provider ... onus is discharged, only commission could be taxed in assessee's hands. However, in case of failure to establish, the entire cash credit addition u/s 68 of the Act would stand affirmed. Page 28 ITA No. 3290/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Real Time Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 10.2 The decision

ITO, Patiala vs. Sh. Kamalpreet Singh, Patiala

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 225/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 120(1)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Ld. AO. On merits of addition u/s 68, the assessee contended that the report of handwriting expert was not confronted to the assessee which was in gross violation of principles of natural

ITO, Patiala vs. Sh. Balwinder Singh, Patiala

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 224/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 120(1)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Ld. AO. On merits of addition u/s 68, the assessee contended that the report of handwriting expert was not confronted to the assessee which was in gross violation of principles of natural

Sh. Kamalpreet Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 185/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 120(1)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction of Ld. AO. On merits of addition u/s 68, the assessee contended that the report of handwriting expert was not confronted to the assessee which was in gross violation of principles of natural

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2032/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Maloo, AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

loan. Therefore, these credit entries were not only properly explained but were also outside the preview of Section 68 of IT Act. No addition u/s 68 can be made on receipt from Zeb IT Service Pvt. Ltd. 5.2.9 It is admitted by the appellant that his transaction with Mr. Harshraj

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV