← 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

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Jaideep Halwasiya, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata Jaideep Halwasiya 3Rd Floor, P-34, Exchange Place, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Vs. Shantiapply, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-70001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aawph1706L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Ms. Puja Somani, Dr Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 131Section 68

deduction of TDS at source. The ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee is not beneficiary of the said money and therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that the Jaideep halwasiya; A.Y. 2016-17 loans were taken from three

DCIT- Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 317/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

loan transaction. We find it relevant to quote the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is as under: 42. In the context of addition u/s 68 of the IT Act, the 2nd important aspect is to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The assessee is required to establish

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

loan transaction. We find it relevant to quote the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is as under: 42. In the context of addition u/s 68 of the IT Act, the 2nd important aspect is to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The assessee is required to establish

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

ITA 883/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In all the years, the issue pertains to additions u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan taken from various parties and addition u/s. 69C of the Act on account of interest on unsecured loans ... which the assessee has preferred appeals before this Tribunal is tabulated hereunder: Vasupujya Filaments (batch appeals) AY Appeal No Allegation Amount Rs. Addition u/s 68 on account of unsecured loan. 64,00,000 2013-14 876/MUM/2025 Addition u/s 69C on account of interest on 1,18,948 unsecured loans. Addition

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

ITA 876/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In all the years, the issue pertains to additions u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan taken from various parties and addition u/s. 69C of the Act on account of interest on unsecured loans ... which the assessee has preferred appeals before this Tribunal is tabulated hereunder: Vasupujya Filaments (batch appeals) AY Appeal No Allegation Amount Rs. Addition u/s 68 on account of unsecured loan. 64,00,000 2013-14 876/MUM/2025 Addition u/s 69C on account of interest on 1,18,948 unsecured loans. Addition

Anand Mellaram Issrani, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69C

statement, relevant documents such as contract notes, demat statement, relevant documents such as contract notes, demat statement, broker ledger and bank statement, thus addition u/s 68 is bad at broker ledger and bank statement, thus addition u/s 68 is bad at broker ledger and bank statement, thus addition u/s 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Jasdeep Kaur Chadha, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 359/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 68

adverting to the documents filed went to observe that assessee did not produce any of the parties. On these reasoning he made the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 4,22,00,000/-. 10. Thus it was stated that the source in the hands of the assessee stands proved ... examine source of source of non-share capital cases. 29. Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there

Jasdeep Kaur Chadha-Jalandhar, Punjab vs. Jao the DCIT Circle-4 Jalandhar, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/ASR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 68

adverting to the documents filed went to observe that assessee did not produce any of the parties. On these reasoning he made the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 4,22,00,000/-. 10. Thus it was stated that the source in the hands of the assessee stands proved ... examine source of source of non-share capital cases. 29. Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Massimo Enterprise, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1111/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

Nos.1107-1109 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises submitted that once repayment of loan is accepted by the Department, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. The submission of the assessee is reproduced at pages 4 to 8 and 10 to 15 of the appellate order ... furnished requisites material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of such loan. The repayment of loans in the present case has been accepted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Anupa Jignesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1109/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

Nos.1107-1109 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises submitted that once repayment of loan is accepted by the Department, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. The submission of the assessee is reproduced at pages 4 to 8 and 10 to 15 of the appellate order ... furnished requisites material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of such loan. The repayment of loans in the present case has been accepted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Jignesh Mahesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1108/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

Nos.1107-1109 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises submitted that once repayment of loan is accepted by the Department, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. The submission of the assessee is reproduced at pages 4 to 8 and 10 to 15 of the appellate order ... furnished requisites material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of such loan. The repayment of loans in the present case has been accepted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Jignesh Mahesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1107/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

Nos.1107-1109 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises submitted that once repayment of loan is accepted by the Department, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. The submission of the assessee is reproduced at pages 4 to 8 and 10 to 15 of the appellate order ... furnished requisites material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of such loan. The repayment of loans in the present case has been accepted

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded vs. Rakesh Hukumchand Agarwal, Nanded

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

ITA 1655/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

under :- “4.3 The appellant had requested since the AO had already accepted the business activities done in the name & style of SRMSC, the addition u/s 68 is not to be made. Whereas, alternatively submitted that he may kindly be granted peak credit or income may be taken

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Standard Fireworks Private Limited, Sivakasi, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 584/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 12ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 80G

bring on record any corroborative evidence to the contrary. The failure to conduct proper inquiry and rebut the appellant’s submissions renders the addition u/s 68 of the Act unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6.4.13 Moreover, taxing these amounts u/s 68 of the Act would result in double taxation ... drafts, the absence of any contrary evidence from the AO, and the fact that these amounts have already been disclosed as sales, the addition u/s 68 of the Act is devoid of merits. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the addition made u/s 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. M/S. Standard Fireworks Private Limited, Sivakasi, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 583/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.M. Mohan Babu, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 80G

bring on record any corroborative evidence to the contrary. The failure to conduct proper inquiry and rebut the appellant’s submissions renders the addition u/s 68 of the Act unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6.4.13 Moreover, taxing these amounts u/s 68 of the Act would result in double taxation ... drafts, the absence of any contrary evidence from the AO, and the fact that these amounts have already been disclosed as sales, the addition u/s 68 of the Act is devoid of merits. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the addition made u/s 68

Hiralal Vijawat, Bhawanimandi vs. ACIT / DCIT Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 614/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (VC)For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, SR. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

survey should be considered as earned from business activity. If the argument of the assessee are accepted then there will be no addition u/s 68, 69, 69A or 69C in case the assessee is engaged in some business activity. This is not found to be acceptable as per the provisions

Sequel Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Karkardooma Community Centre vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

with questionnaire. The assessee filed their submission but not reply the show cause notice. The Assessing officer completed the assessment after making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before

Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building, ITO vs. Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4039/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

stands duly explained and there is no case for making any addition u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. We find that similar issue was also considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House in ITA 613/2010 wherein

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1271/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

referred to in Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the I. T.Act, 1961. In the instant case AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus the AO had correctly applied section 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961 and accordingly the ground raised

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

referred to in Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the I. T.Act, 1961. In the instant case AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus the AO had correctly applied section 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961 and accordingly the ground raised