“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

Laxman Gopaldas Sarda, Mumbai vs. ITO - 33(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5193/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unnavekar, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 68

producing the relevant documents, has been able to discharge his prima-facie onus cast u/s 68 of the Act and therefore the addition u/s 68 of the Act in any sense is not sustainable. Resultantly, the addition in hand, is deleted. 5 Mr. Laxman Gopaldas Sarda 9. In the result

Brijbhoomi Sheetalaya India P Ltd, Mainpuri vs. DCIT Central Circle, Farrukhabad

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 337/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 337/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Brijbhoomi Sheetalaya Dcit, Circle 2(1), बनाम/ India (P) Ltd. Farrukhabad. Vpo Chirara, Sultanganj Vs. G.T. Road, Mainpuri. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcb-7653-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aligarh [Cit(A)] On 24-01-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 05-02- 2013. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal. Upon Perusal Of Caser Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Runs Cold Storage For Potatoes. It Transpired That The Assessee Received Share Capital Of Rs.69.60 Lacs & Unsecured Loans Of Rs.62.95 Lacs From 4 Persons As Tabulated In Para-3 Of The Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Rs.7.43 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. The claim of share capital and unsecured loans was partially accepted and Ld. AO made addition u/s 68 for Rs.23.83 Lacs and u/s 69C for Rs.10.90 Lacs and Rs.34.42 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of sufficient documentary

Late Harilal Mavjibhai Patel, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2698/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranik

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68Section 69

Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the alleged excess stock found in Survey, addition u/s 68. Appellant prays to hold that Sec.68 has no application. Appellant prays to cancel the applicability of Sec. 115BBE accepting the same as Business Income

Citizen Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2681/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Citizen Nagari Sahakri Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Patsanstha Ltd., 5, Dsouza Colony, Tulip Apartment, College Road, Nashik- 422005. Pan : Aabac1443M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.74,80,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The It Act, By Disregarding The Detailed Submission Made By The Appellant, Wherein It Was Mentioned That The Case Deposited In Bank Belongs To Identified

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 68

completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.74,80,000/-. The above assessed income includes addition u/s 68 of Rs.74,80,000/- being the SBN (Specified Bank Note) deposited during demonetization period. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee

Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam vs. ACIT, Circle, Kollam

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

ITA 324/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Navdeep Educational Trust 38/109, Navdeep Mundakkal East 691001 Acit Vs. Kollam Circle Kerala Kollam Pan No : Aabtn0952H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/ Nfac Dated 26.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061508122(1) For The Ay 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

various case laws relied upon by the assessee. 7. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the AO has made protective addition u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained cash credit in the account of managing trustee Mr. Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page

Kazi Zainal Absar, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Asansol

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

ITA 348/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 40

complete scrutiny through CASS and additions for non-deduction of TDS on interest payment, repair and maintenance charges, machine hire charges and addition u/s 68 of the Act for loan of Rs. 15 Lakh were made. Another sum of Rs. 9,14,991/-, being 25% of the expenses claimed ... assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition on account of non-deduction of TDS and also the addition u/s 68 of the Act but deleted the addition on account of destruction of stock due to fire from lightning and the appeal was partly allowed

Mayfair Villa Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes regarding issue no

ITA 1407/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 43Section 50CSection 68

respective parties. We have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO and find that there are additions u/s 68 of the Act, disallowance u/s 14A and u/s 50C of the Act as there was mis-match in the AIR. i) First issue regarding addition u/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Subdhan Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1398/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

u/s 147 of the Act on 31.03.2022 by the determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,37,00,000/-. after making addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- in the form of bogus sale of shares. 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order

General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle, 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

brevity :- “A. Statutory ingredients of Section 68 not satisfied- Absence of jurisdictional facts; 10. It is submitted to lawfully impose the impugned addition u/s. 68 of the Act, the statutory ingredients thereunder must be satisfied, provided as follows: "Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books ... Mayawati 338 ITR 563 [DEL], that where books of accounts are not maintained by the Assessee, the Revenue cannot make an addition u/s 68 of the Act. 15. Additionally, there is also no material placed on record by the Ld. AO vide the impugned Assessment order dated 13.12.2018 that

Sumit Kumra Agarwal, Gwalior vs. ITO., Ward-2(3), Gwalior

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 193/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

hearing, Ld. AR did not press for ground nos. 5 to 9. In the remaining grounds, the grievance of the assessee is – (i) Addition u/s 68 for Rs.211.97 Lacs; (ii) Addition of alleged undisclosed sales for Rs.47.38 Lacs, Rs.3.50 Lacs and for Rs.13.59 Lacs. The assessee is stated ... engaged in trading of dairy products on wholesale basis. 3. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.211.97 Lacs 3.1 The assessee received advanced from customers against future sales. The advances were adjusted against subsequent sales. In support, the assessee furnished cash memo receipts. However, Ld. AO added the same u/s 68

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

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

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69

also confronted by the Bench as to when the repayment of the debtors was not accepted by the Ld. AO why the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act should not be considered in AY 2016-17 instead of protective assessment made in AY 2016-17. The Ld. AR requested

Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 845/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 84, Sainath Society, At-Maandavi Ward - 1, Ta-Mandavi, Surat-394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amppp2266C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dalzin Madan, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 253(3)Section 271A

income as well as JCB job work income u/s 44AD offered by the assessee. Having accepted the credits shown in the return, no addition u/s 68 can be made. The CIT(A) has upheld the order of AO on the ground that cash withdrawals of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.17

Pratik Ashvinkumar Soni, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 163/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in making unwarranted and frivolous observations while upholding the addition u/s 68 of the Act which are not on facts of appellant's case which itself prove that Id CIT(A) has passed appellate order

Prajita Investments Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2850/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri. Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

333ITR 100 held that, when all documents were provided and no scrutiny u/s. Carried out by Ld. AO regarding such documents addition u/s 68 cannot be made. Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries reported 397 ITR 136 held that 8 ITA No.2850/mum/2024 ... opinion that since the Ld. AO did not even attempt to dislodge the primary evidences furnished by the assessee, addition u/s 68 cannot be made on mere suspicion. Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced

Suman Kishore, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee wherein amount of notional income of house property was reduced to some extent and also the addition u/s 68 of the Act was reduced to INR 91,34,728/- as against addition of INR 1,75,59,728/- made

Brijwasi Real Estate, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 74/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.74/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Brijwasi Real Estate Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 40/2-A, Sarswati Bhawan, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura. Vs. Prayag Ghat, Mathura (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfb6619C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. M.M. Agarwal, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 31-03-2018 Pursuant To Receipt Of Certain Information From Investigation Wing. It Was Alleged That Income Of Rs.544.47 Lacs Escaped Assessment. The Same Represent Investment In Two Immoveable Properties By The Firm. The Assessee Stated That The Properties Were Purchased Out Of Partners’ Capital. The Ld.

For Appellant: Sh. M.M. Agarwal, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

capital was Rs.421.15 Lacs and unsecured loans were Rs.296.10 Lacs. The closing stock was shown for Rs.568.39 Lacs. The Ld. AO finally made addition u/s 68 for Rs.296.10 Lacs with respect to unsecured loans on the allegation that the nature and source thereof could not be proved by the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra vs. Vinah Bansal, Agra

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 387/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.387/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit (Central Circle) Shri Vinay Bansal बनाम/ Agra. G-3, Roshanlal Complex Vs. Kinari Bazar, Agra-282003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aelpb-6036-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. S.C. Jain, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [Cit(A)] Dated 05-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 07-09-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Is Addition U/S 68 & Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. 2. During Assessment Proceedings, It Transpired That The Assessee Obtained Unsecured Loans From 15 Persons As Tabulated In Para-5 Of The Assessment Order. After Examining The Documentary Evidences As Furnished By The Assessee, Ld. Ao Accepted The Loans Partially & Made Addition U/S 68 For Rs.104.90 Lacs With Respect To 7 Individual Lenders.

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Jain, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the same is adjudicated as under. The subject matter of appeal is addition u/s 68 and addition of alleged bogus purchases. 2. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee obtained unsecured loans from 15 persons as tabulated in para ... assessment order. After examining the documentary evidences as furnished by the assessee, Ld. AO accepted the loans partially and made addition u/s 68 for Rs.104.90 Lacs with respect to 7 individual lenders. The Ld. AO made another addition of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.88.52 Lacs with respect to purchases made

ACIT Circle-3(1), Gwalior vs. Shri Praveen Kumar Shivhare, Gwalior

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 172/AGR/2017[200-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Rs.353.29 Lacs after various additions since the assessee failed to file satisfactory replies. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the remand report deleted addition u/s 68 for Rs.81.54 Lacs for sundry creditors represented by M/s C.P. Industries since entire transaction was with that entity only and the assessment of proprietor

K.S. City Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 17/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 17/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) K.S. City Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2, बनाम/ 301, Silver Arc Plaza, 20/1, Gwalior Vs. New Palasia, Indore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-8217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 23-12-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 22-11-2011. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 68 For Rs.25 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. Pursuant To Search Action On Assessee Group On 11-03-2010, Ld. Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Issued Share Capital Of Rs.25 Lacs (Including Share Premium Of Rs.24.95 Lacs) To Smt. Alka Bansal. The Ld. Ao Added The Same U/S 68 For Want Of Sufficient Documentary Evidences.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22-11-2011. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition u/s 68 for Rs.25 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. Pursuant to search action on assessee group

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Southwinds Project LLP, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

precluded from making any other addition in the assessment for AY 2011-12. Hence, the AO's action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act in the relevant AY 2011-12 is held to be unsustainable for want of jurisdiction and is therefore is quashed. The assessee thus succeeds