“addition u/s 68”

ITO Ward-47(1), New Delhi vs. Surender Kapoor, New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Vs Surender Kapoor, Ward-47(1), 1588, Dariba Kalan, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, New Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Aalpk6721B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate & Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

assessment order and substantiated arguments on the grounds raised, however, on appreciating the material on record and submissions we find that first addition u/s 68 of the Act was made on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period, AO has alleged that the Assessee has booked concocted cash

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

abovesaid seven parties amounts to Rs.2,32,00,000/-. Since assessee has not submitted any details the AO proceeded to make the abovesaid addition u/s 68 of the Act and observed that onus lies on the assessee to explain the nature and sources of any sum credited in its books ... account. Since there is no material submitted by the assessee, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,32,00,000/-. 18. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted the detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

abovesaid seven parties amounts to Rs.2,32,00,000/-. Since assessee has not submitted any details the AO proceeded to make the abovesaid addition u/s 68 of the Act and observed that onus lies on the assessee to explain the nature and sources of any sum credited in its books ... account. Since there is no material submitted by the assessee, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,32,00,000/-. 18. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted the detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions

Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad.

abovesaid seven parties amounts to Rs.2,32,00,000/-. Since assessee has not submitted any details the AO proceeded to make the abovesaid addition u/s 68 of the Act and observed that onus lies on the assessee to explain the nature and sources of any sum credited in its books ... account. Since there is no material submitted by the assessee, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,32,00,000/-. 18. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted the detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions

Knowlarity Communications India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Knowlarity Communications India Vs Acit, Private Ltd., Circle 14(2), Awfis, 7Th Floor, Delhi. Ambience Mall, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan : Aafck1875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

approval from the Reserve Bank of India and other regulators of remittances of foreign exchanges. The ld. AR has also submitted that addition u/s 68 had been made without an opportunity of hearing. 8. In this context, we find that at page 345 of the paper book, the assessee ... issuing show cause notice for examining the receipt of share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the AO has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act alleging the source of source is unexplained. Though the CIT(A) has done some exercise to examine the valuation

Arvind Kumar Prop. M/S Shree Balaji Trading Co., Panipat vs. Addl/Jt/Asst Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

further notices were issued to submit the relevant information. Since assessee has not submitted any further details, the AO proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act with the observation that the assessee has deposited his unaccounted cash of Rs.43 lakhs in his bank account during demonetization period

Sperry Plast Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appealof the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sperry Plast Vs. Dcit 208, 2Nd Floor, Akashdeep Central Circle-6, Building, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, Connaught Place, S.O. Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs2623L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ca Amit Goel, Advocate Deepanshusingla & Advocate Pranav Yadav Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Delhi Dated 16/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Order Dated 16.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Partly Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- In Place Of Returned Income As Returned By The Assessee Is Bad In Law On Account Of Several Grounds & Assessee/Appellant Denies Its Liability To Be Assessed For Any Income Other Than The Income Already Returned By The Assessee & Any Consequential Demand Thereon.

proceedings initiated against the Assessee. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/12/2019 by making an addition u/s 68 r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act of Rs. 22,01,62,000/- treating the unsecured loans received as bogus entries and further made addition

Avt Homes Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

That the Ld. CIT (A), NF AC has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Act even by admitting the documentary evidences filed and without calling for the remand report against as additional evidences filed under Rule ... Para 5 Page 2 of its order. | | #### Submissions: 6. It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has sustained the addition u/s 68 of the Act while holding that though the appellant company has produced the requisite documents like copies of ITR's, PAN, Audited Reports, Bank Statements