“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

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. The ACIT, Circle- Palanpur, Palanpur

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1368/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

liable to be deleted. 10. The ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee for both assessment years. Ground relating to addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit 11. The AO noted that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from the following parties during the assessment

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. Old Jurisdiction- Circle, Palanpur New Jurisdiction-Circle, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1367/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Maharudra Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Sonjamb, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1777/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 5Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.23,78,500 towards alleged unexplained cash deposits made in bank account during demonetization period without appreciating that the said addition was not justified ... assessee credit society was not permitted by Govt. to accept old SBNs from its members, still it is to be noted that no addition u/s 68 could have been made in the hands of the assessee society once it was established that the said cash deposits were made

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

addition ought to have made of same u/s 68 of I.T. Act 1961. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act 1961 by A.O. and thereby dismissing the ground of appeal of assessee. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting personal

Ujjain Nagrik Sahkari Pedi Maryadit Ujjain, Ujjain vs. ITO 1(2) Ujjain, Ujjain

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

ITA 318/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniujjain Nagrik Sahkari Pedi Ito 1(2) Maryadit Ujjain Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaau0360J Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

assessee society in the shape of deposits in the Saving Bank Account, Current Account and Fixed Deposit of the respective members/customers. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act made by the AO ignoring record of deposit made by the members and customers of the assessee society is highly unjustified ... those cases have been deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that once the assessee has explained the source of deposit then the addition u/s 68 cannot be made on the ground that the deposit made in the bank account of the members of the society is in contravention

Shridev Procon Ltd., (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 300/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR &For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 68

u/s. 68. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that members collection received during the year cannot be subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act and such amount is already repaid in subsequent year on cancellation of booking. Shridev Procon Ltd. (Earlier known as Dev Procon

Ebrahim Essa Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prateek Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

issue of Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer may examine the issue of Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd. 12 addition u/s 68 of the Act in accordance with law. The ground Nos. addition u/s 68 of the Act in accordance with law. The ground No addition

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3825/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

opinion that the assessee has been found to be in receipt of cash loans from different parties though, the AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Act but the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the proper Section should have been Section

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3824/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Magnetic Properties Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2617/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Magnetic Properties Exim Pvt. Ward-7(2)(1), Ltd., Room No. 126-H, Vs. 477, Babyloan Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Adenwala Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Matunga, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Aagcm8999K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

books, are added u/s 68 r.w.s. 56 of the IT Act.” 8. It can be noticed that the AO is making addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 56 of the Act. Under the Act, unexplained investments will be covered by sec.69 of the Act and cash credits will be covered by sec.68

Rajesh Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1561/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Rajesh Singla, Vs Dcit, C/O Plot No.413, Sector-9, Central Circle-Ii, Faridabad, Faridabad. Haryana – 121 006. Pan: Ajxps4378R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153DSection 68Section 69A

considered view that the ld.CIT(A) has completely failed to take into consideration the due explanation and, accordingly, the addition u/s 68 cannot be sustained. The question of assessee having a job and from which he was having salary should not have been doubted in present AY, when in precious

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 4554/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

operandi adopted by Bhanwarlal Jain Group of cases to provide bogus accommodation entries of loan. The main reason of the AO for making addition u/s 68 was on the basis of information provided by the Investigation Wing of the Department. No independent enquiry has been conducted

Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1567/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Ward Exemption V/S. Vohrawad, Godhra Vadodara Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatd 4476 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri b.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 68

assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld the reopening u/s 147 and dismissed the appeal confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act citing assessee’s inability to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the cash deposits. The CIT(A) also upheld the taxation under Section 115BBE

Graylines Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 30/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gray Lines Engineers & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –2(2), Contractors Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccg5551B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

case, the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in law and facts of the case in ex-parte confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act, contrary to the facts on record and applicable law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company

Income Tax Officer - 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2477/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito – 12(2)(1), Mumbai Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited Vs Shop No. 50/51, Gulab Baug, M.G. Road, Opp Railway Station, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan; Aaacd 8748 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.G. SakariaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 in which it was held that: Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods ... Rs.1,51,53,450/- and also do not find any defect in the accounts. Accordingly, there is no need to make the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. 9 Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited A.Y. 2017-18 Therefore, the addition made

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekito, Ward 1 (1), Vs. M/S. Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. D-62, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Aagca4596C) Co No.152/Del/2017 (In Ita No.2749/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), D-62, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Aagca4596C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi [Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 14ASection 68

material available on record. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.67,934/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act by observing that assessee has shown unsecured loans as long term borrowings received from related parties. Out of the above long ... additions u/s 14A of the Act with the observation that assessee has not received any exempt income during the year. With regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act, ld. CIT (A) considered the submissions and evidences made by the assessee during appellate proceedings along with paper book, confirmation

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Manuvel Mezhukanal, New Delhi

ITA 1550/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Manuvel Mezhukanal, Central Circle-01, 209-10, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Ina Market, New Delhi. Pan: Ablpv5671Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.01.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10504/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 53(1), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 68

Rs.3,06,92,049/-) being profit corresponding to cash sales of Rs.3,06,92,049/- which was added u/s 68. Now as addition u/s 68 is deleted and Rs.3,06,92,049/- is treated as part of cash sales, profit corresponding this amount which was reduced by the AO from ... record. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The assessing officer made the addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into

Atiresh Sales Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3)ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 763/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

repaid from time to time and the loans have taken on various occasions, so the reply of the appellant appears acceptable and the addition u/s 68 on account of deposits of B.J. Shah HUF is reduced to Rs. 24,63,178.” 4. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal

Sh. Ankit Somani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn

ITA 986/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C.Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 68Section 92(1)

Vide assessment order dated 26.09.2021, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee-appellant at Rs. 15,15,027/-, by making an addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as the assessee was found to have made investment in a company, which

Tack Exim Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. ACIT Circle2(3)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 324/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tack Exim Pvt. Limited V. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11/18-A, Pokharpur Income Tax, Jajmau, Kanpur Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadct7929D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271ASection 68

assessee and have arbitrarily held that the amounts realized from the customers and the sale proceeds, are unexplained credits, thereby making addition u/s 68 of the Act which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law, be deleted. 04. Because there being no "cash credits" as defined in section 68 ... books of account, it was held that when Assessee already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present