“addition u/s 68”

Manoj Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmanoj Jain Huf Vs. Ito Ward 42(1)(3) 703, Gaurav Villa, Mahavir Kautilya Bhavan, Nagar, Kandivali West, Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400067. Pan/Gir No. Aaihm4888E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Mumbai. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 29,19,330/-, being sale consideration received on sale of shares of M/s Swarnsarita Gems Limited ... facilitate tax evasion and thus called for more details, but assessee could not submit the same. Therefore AO completed the assessment by making additions u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Although appeal was filed by the assessee along with application for additional evidence, but Ld. CIT(A) while seeking

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Viz. 31/03/2017, Thereby The Notice U/S.148 & Consequential Reassessment Order Passed U/S.147 Is Bad In Law;

obtained from correct approving authority; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of sale consideration of STT paid listed shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd of Rs.5

Shri Sandeep S Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

since the assessee has returned income u/s 44AD of the Act thereby opting for presumptive taxation, there is no question of making any addition u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the AO. I.T.A. No. 4801/Mum/2024 3 6. We have given thoughtful consideration ... assessee returned its business income under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Act by which he gets immunity from maintaining books of accounts. Addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made on the basis of the entries found in the passbook of the assessee. 6.1. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Spectra Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

creditors. We are of the considered view that once the AO has accepted the sales, taking a part of it for making addition u/s 68 of the Act is uncalled for. The AO himself has accepted that the assessee has furnished complete details of exchange of vehicles. Merely because

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(1), Mumbai vs. Evergreen Financial Services, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Appellant V/S Evergreen Financial Services, Kanakia Future City, Cts 101, Behind Dr. L H Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai-400093. ……………. Respondent Pan : Aabfe 9028 R

Limited M/s Penguin Trading & Agencies 5,00,00,000 Ltd M/s Uttam Galva Metallics 4,13,50,000 Limited. Total addition u/s 68 10,13,50,000 (ii) Considering the non-genuineness of the loan transactions, the following interest expenditure on the loan, taken during the year