← 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

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2770/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

68 of the Act in the assessments framed u/s 153A of the Act. On appeal, it was the assessee’s contention that the addition u/s 68 was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search and therefore the assessee claimed that the impugned additions be deleted

Ashok Kumar, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 500/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarashok Kumar Pr. Cit Vs. House No.77, Sector – 22, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015 Haryana – 122 001 Pan No. Aoapk 9635 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. & Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44Section 44ASection 68

action of the Pr.CIT, who ignored the basic fact that in the absence of books of accounts in Sec.44AD case no addition u/s 68 of the Act could be made. Even otherwise the order of the Ld. AO impugned by the Pr.CIT is blemishless and deserves to be / affirmed

Sumit Prakashrao Fulzele, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Allahabad) (2020) cash deposit claimed it from agricultural income prove cultivation of agricultural produce by Khasra to source of irrigation cold storage evidence - Addition u/s 68 as undisclosed income - upheld. 6 Sumit Prakashrao Fulzele 34. Thus, it is clear that except for giving copy of order of BCA w.e.f

Dinesh Saha, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 1142/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in ITA No. 325/2008 order dated 22.07.2009 to canvas the point that no addition u/s 68 of the Act could be made on account of trade creditors when the books of accounts have not been rejected. Relying on the ITAT orders

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 32 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Bongaon Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bongaon West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1101/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Assessing Officer and hence it was rightly treated as Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal during the appellate proceedings.” 2. Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. AO and stated regarding the addition u/s 68 of the Act that the assessee should not have accepted currency notes which were no longer legal tender. On the issue of interest income earned

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

account of cash deposits made in the bank account. The appellant contended as under:-- (i) That the assessing officer erred in making addition u/s 68 of the IT act without reckoning about the applicability of provision Section 68, on astonishing presumption and illogical basis adopted in engineering allegations and creation ... amounting to Rs 13,84,097 is concerned as never sec 145(3) is pressed (rejection of audited books) qua subject ad-hoc addition u/s 68 of IT ACT, sans which entire exercise of making addition u/s 68 fails and falls; 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. Although

DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nikita Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2593/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 68

have gone through the submission of appellant and the Order of Learned Assessing Officer. The ground of appeal pertains to carrying out addition u/s 68 (i.e. unexplained cash credits) in the event of depositing cash in the bank account during demonetization

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. Kapilkumar Amarchand Agrawal, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1489/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 68

Commodity Exchange to the AO were already recorded in the books of accounts and details of the same were matching. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 was unwarranted in this case and is directed to be deleted.” 5.1 Since the assessee has not entered into transaction with entities namely RS Enterprise

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1-(1), Hyderabad vs. Anand'S Gold Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.100/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Anand’S Gold Private Central Circle-1(1) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcu0225F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 13/11/2024 आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11/11/2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)] Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Bullion & Gold Jewellery & Other Precious Metals. The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 31/10/2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,54,546/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT, DR
Section 68

well as the sales. Since, the assessee has 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. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Lakhotia Diagnostic Service Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1320/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

before the ld. CIT(A) wherein after hearing the submissions and documents, appeal of the assessee has been allowed with regard to the addition u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. But addition of interest and brokerage on cash loans to the tune of Rs. 9.90 Lakh has been sustained

Muthu Karuppai Sudar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1726/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1726 /Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muthu Karuppai Sudar Income Tax Officer, No.403B, Gughan Agency, Vs. Non-Corpn Ward-19(4), Thiruvottiyur High Road, Chennai Thiruvottiyur, Chennai-600 19. [Pan: Chqps2044M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate & Mr.T.Pothi Madhavan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of : 08.11.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065210492(1) Dated 29.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2017-18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged The Order U/S 250 Dated 29.05.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, Advocate & Mr.T.PothiFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. The Ld. AO has made an addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of Rs.52,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits being cash received from sundry debtors. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted

Vijay Pravinchandra Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cirlce 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Vijay Pravinchandra Thakkar Acit Circle 14(2)(2) 1204-05, Kalindi, Neelkanth Valley, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Ghatkopar E, Rajawadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 077

For Appellant: Shri Manoj GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap
Section 68

That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order sustaining addition u/s 68 of the Act perverse of records available with assessing officer so much so that impugned order was passed without summoning the assessment records. 3) That

People Care Hospitals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining addition u/s 68 of the Act and enhancing the income of appellant on protective basis u/s 56(2)(viib) r.w.r 11UA of IT rules without appreciating the fact ... Coordinate Bench in case of M/s. Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under :- "12. The Ld. A.O while making an addition u/s 68 of the Act raised question over the ne of the transaction source of funds invested. Further held that, the investor companies do not have

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Pujita Merchandise Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1293/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata………………………..………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.…..….........…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent 37E, Block-B, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aadcp7771M] Appearances By: Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record, Wherein, The Reasons For The Delay Have Duly Been Mentioned. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Find Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Upon The Matter. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question On 27.09.2012 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.11,100/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & In Response To

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

order. 6. On the other hand, the ld. AR objected to such prayer made by the ld. DR. He stated that if an addition u/s 68 of the Act is made, there must be credit for the financial year relevant to the assessment year in question. He has submitted that

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Mahendrakumar Laljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 194/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)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

Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s 68 without considering evidences submitted by the appellant, including Allotment Forms filed with MCA, Certificates issued by the Company Secretary with respect to allotments, Bank Statements reflecting the transaction, and Confirmation Letters given

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Euro Pratik Ispat India Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3961/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 68

money in its account. We fail to understand how these transactions can be treated as the unaccounted/unexplained money of the assessee for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. The reasons given by the AO are baseless. (iii) Bengal Credit Corporation Pvt. Ltd.:- This company has given Rs.2.75 Crores ... inferred that the assessee’s own money has been routed as a loan. We fail to understand, how this inference can make additions u/s 68 of the Act. The flimsy reasons given by the AO are not accepted. (iv) Prince Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd.:- This company has given Rs.6

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Verve Construction LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Verve Construction Llp, Flat No.502, 502A, 5Th Floor, New Delhi. Narain Manzil – 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aapfv9685D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Baheti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals /National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 12.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2019-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 68

response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer discussed the implications of section 68 in his order and proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act on the fixed capital of the partners, namely, M/s. Shipra Estate Limited, Verve Homes Private Limited and Regalia Properties Private Ltd. and also ... during the current year. Since no response or loan confirmation from the above said partners, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.69,32,10,605/- i.e. Rs.35,000/- of fixed capital introduced by the partner, M/s. Shipra Estate Limited and current capital

Archit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centralcircle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2625/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 151Section 250

view of no business income declared or if declared u/s 44AD. If that be the case, the department is debarred from making addition u/s 68. This issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Mayawati [2011] 12 taxmann.com

Archit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 151Section 250

view of no business income declared or if declared u/s 44AD. If that be the case, the department is debarred from making addition u/s 68. This issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Mayawati [2011] 12 taxmann.com