← 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

Narmada Commodities Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare partly allowed

ITA 1975/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Narmada Commodities Trading Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2010-11 & 11-12 commission at the rate of 0.20% per ₹100 instead of entire deposit being addition u/s 68 of the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 08.10.2010, declaring total income

Vijay Maneklal Bhansali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1773/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram / Shri Shashi Bekal,ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 151Section 153CSection 68

them, the ground no. 4 is dismissed. 9. Ground nos. 5 to 7 are substantive grounds in which the assessee has contested the addition u/s 68 of the sum of Rs 4,89,69,600/-.Facts of the case are that based on Forward Market Commission (FMC) report that "clients/members

Meena Jewellers Extension Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 385/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly made additions towards profits from the business by estimating @10% on total turnover and also made addition u/s 68 of Act towards loans and advances taken by the assessee and addition u/s 69A of the Act towards cash deposited during demonetization period. Therefore

Meena Jewellers Extension Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 330/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly made additions towards profits from the business by estimating @10% on total turnover and also made addition u/s 68 of Act towards loans and advances taken by the assessee and addition u/s 69A of the Act towards cash deposited during demonetization period. Therefore

Meena Jewellers Extension Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 329/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly made additions towards profits from the business by estimating @10% on total turnover and also made addition u/s 68 of Act towards loans and advances taken by the assessee and addition u/s 69A of the Act towards cash deposited during demonetization period. Therefore

Meena Jewellers Extension Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabd

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 328/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly made additions towards profits from the business by estimating @10% on total turnover and also made addition u/s 68 of Act towards loans and advances taken by the assessee and addition u/s 69A of the Act towards cash deposited during demonetization period. Therefore

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Agrawal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 331/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 331/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40aSection 68

Agrawal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 5. Since the appeal of the assessee is allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) by deleting the aforesaid additions u/s 68 made by the Ld. AO, aggrieved thereby the revenue filed the present appeal assailing the order of Ld. CIT(A), in terms of ground ... appeal extracted (supra). 6. The additions u/s 68 of the Act, are made on account of unexplained cash credit received by the assessee in the garb of unsecured loan, and increase in share capital, the details of such addition furnished by the Ld. AO in the assessment order, are culled

Amit Rajnikant Joshi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 367/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.367/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amit Rajnikant Joshi The Dy.Cit बनाम/ C-29, Aryaman Bungalows Anand Nagar V/S. Opp. Anand Niketan School Prahaladnagar Road Thaltej, Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 05 Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmpj 6798 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shrivastav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making addition u/s 68 on account of bogus long term capital gain of Rs.9,68,248/-. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/CHNY/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings and an assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 26.12.2018. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain addition u/s 68 for Rs.105 Crores and withdrew excess claim of depreciation for Rs.456.21 Lacs as made by the assessee. The first appeal against the quantum addition ... dismissed. The assessee carried the issue of addition u/s 68 before Tribunal vide ITA No.882/Chny/2020 order dated 31.01.2023 which was allowed. The assessee did not contest the claim of excess depreciation and the same thus attained finality. At the same time, the quantum addition as made by Ld. AO u/s

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reassessment proceedings and an assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 26.12.2018. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain addition u/s 68 for Rs.105 Crores and withdrew excess claim of depreciation for Rs.456.21 Lacs as made by the assessee. The first appeal against the quantum addition ... dismissed. The assessee carried the issue of addition u/s 68 before Tribunal vide ITA No.882/Chny/2020 order dated 31.01.2023 which was allowed. The assessee did not contest the claim of excess depreciation and the same thus attained finality. At the same time, the quantum addition as made by Ld. AO u/s

Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While deliberating upon this issue, on being queried about the status of the quantum addition u/s 68 in the present case, Ld. AR informed that the same is challenged by the assessee under an appeal and the same is pending before ... NFAC on 13.04.2022. Such facts were duly brought to the knowledge of Ld. PCIT. Ld. AR further submitted that the issue qua the addition u/s 68 in treating the sale transaction as bogus was the subject matter of appeal. Ld. AR further argued that, as per doctrine of merger, according

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 77/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in ‘Cash’ above a prescribed limit. f). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 20 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 76/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in ‘Cash’ above a prescribed limit. f). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 20 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 75/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in ‘Cash’ above a prescribed limit. f). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 20 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 74/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

Government. While Gambling is a regulated activity, the IT Act provisions outrightly prohibit procurement in ‘Cash’ above a prescribed limit. f). On addition u/s 68, reliance is placed on the following authorities: ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 20 1. In the matter of Sudhir Kumar

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Supreme Holdings and Hospitality (India) Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1437/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

DCIT- CC-7(1), Mumbai, which is the same A.O who has completed the assessment of appellant. On one hand, the A.O makes addition u/s 68 on account of loan 11 ITA No.1437/Mum/2024 & CO No.68/Mum/2024 Supreme Holdings & Hospitality (India) Ltd., received from this party, whereas on the other hand ... Mumbai, which is the same A.O who has completed the assessment of the appellant. On the one hand, the A.O makes the addition u/s 68 in the case of the appellant on account of unsecured loan received from Lloyds Steels Industries Ltd. and on other hand, the A.O accepts

Inner Wheel Club of Delhi Mid Town, New Delhi vs. ACIT-CPC-Banglore, Banglore

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

ITA 1103/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 68

report as well as the rejoinder of the ld. counsel for the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences. 11. Regarding addition u/s 68 of the Act, we find that the ld. CIT(A) after discussing the facts of the case and observations of the Assessing Officer, came

Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Bapodara, Porbandar vs. Ward - 2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 325/RJT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bapodara Main Chowk Ward – 2(4), Porbandar – Bapodar, Ranavav Porbandar, 360570 Gujarat - 360570 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arspb7433P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 119Section 144

proper. When the assessee had regular cash sale and deposit of cash in bank accounts and if nothing incrementing is found contrary then addition u/s 68 of such cash sale would tantamount to double taxation.” Particularly, in the said judgement, the Tribunal remarked that it was observed that the intention

Yad Dharam Satya Trust, Delhi vs. CIT Exemptions, Delhi

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

ITA 2037/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(a)Section 150Section 68

transactions in their bank accounts. 5. Without prejudiced to the other ground of appeal, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act, of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which has been received in form of share capital ... that in the case of Murari Marketing Pvt Ltd the credit in the account was made prior to the instant year and hence addition u/s 68 in the impugned year cannot be made. With respect to shares subscription from Capital Electrotech Pvt Ltd; Key Components Pvt Ltd and SGS Udyog

Atul Mardia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 1420/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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:

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 37Section 68

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