“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

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delta Foods P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4619/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Lalita Krishnamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 37Section 68

work basis. For the purpose of manufacturing the raw material, packing material and other necessary items were provided by the Britannia Industries Ltd. Addition u/s 68: 4. The addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made by the Assessing Officer owing to the difference

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 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 ... Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshiia 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

Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai City vs. Ravi Shankar Shendge Legal Heir of Late Smt. Suchita Ravi Shendge, Mumbai

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

ITA 2609/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay N. Kapadia

Section 133Section 148Section 68

same, we notice that the assessee has brought forward these three loans from earlier years. It is well settled principle that the addition u/s 68 of the Act should be restricted to the cash credits received in that year only. Since these 3 loans have not been received during

Sadashiv Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 455/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

therefore, rejected the arguments of the appellant that investments were made out of agricultural income of the HUF and consequently made addition u/s 68 of Rs.1,25,965/-. Since the cash deposits were made in the bank and the details of these deposits were made available from the bank passbooks

Prashant Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Shri Merh Kshtriya Sabha, Ajmer vs. CIT(Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: None

Section 11(1)Section 115BSection 12ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

ITAT had stated that since the assessee had already shown these donations as income and applied for the purpose of trust, addition u/s 68 of the Act was not correct in the facts of the said case. In the present case, the appellant has not maintained details of identity

Bhavasar Namdev Simpi Samaj Sahakar Sangh Ltd, Dandeli vs. Income Tax Officer, Hubli

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

ITA 698/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Gaonkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 68Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

observing that the impugned amount should be treated as income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act., however the AO made addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has satisfied the requirement of section 69A of the Act and the AO did not give further opportunity ... assessee for addition u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed the details of list of depositors and loanees who made cash deposits. The AO accepted that it was money deposited by the members and noted that the assessee had brought the entries

Anil Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-57(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1491/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1491/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Anil Kumar Aggarwal Ito 136, 1St Floor, Surya Niketan, Vs. Ward-57(3), Delhi. Room No.10D, D-Block, Pan No.Acfpa7562C Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

Heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. Perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the claim made by the assessee on long term capital gains in respect of sale of 5,000 shares of Kappac ... Pharma Ltd. The long term capital gains claimed by the assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act was denied and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the AO with detailed observations in the assessment order. The same was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) observing as under

Srujitha Annapareddy, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Gain facilitated by entry providers operating from Kolkata and thus, there is no error in given by the learned Assessing Officer to make addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Being aggrieved by the orders of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Karanvir Bajaj, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1942/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Vs. Karanvir Bajaj, Central Circle, House No. 21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgwpb8463K Co No. 82/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 1942/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Karanvir Bajaj, Vs. Acit, House No. 21, Central Circle, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgwpb8463K

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment proceedings. Ld. AR submits that Ld. AO in total disregard of the documentary evidence filed in the assessment proceedings, made the addition u/s 68 of IT Act. In the Remand proceedings Ld. AO states that from the Bank loan statements it has been verified that amount

Shrikanta Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2599/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shrikanta Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, Central Circle-32, 1 Near Raja Garden Delhi. Opp. Mother Dairy, New Delhi 0 110 027 Pan Ahlpr0130J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh,CIT- DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

credit and the explanation of the assessee was not found to be sustainable to the satisfaction of the AO, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before Learned CIT(A), assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report

Acres Buildwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1 (3), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acres Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(3), 6-D, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Khan Pur, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan: Aaacj0152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venketesh Chourasia, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.08.2022 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.10389/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 10.12.2019, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

relied following judgements to support the case of the assessee that unless there is introduction of funds through the accounts, addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made:- (i) Anil Mithas vs. DCIT, ITA No. 7542/Del/2017 dated 31.05.2022 (ii) DCIT vs. NCR Business Park Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 6646/Del/2018 ... have given thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and we observe that CIT(A) in para 12.4, while making the addition u/s 68, has observed as follows:- “…..It is evident from the ledger account submitted, by the appellant at page No. 45 and 46 of the paper book that

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Dhaneshwari Wood Products Ltd, Assam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. J. Bhide, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 68

Dhaneshwari Wood Products Ltd.  Remand report from the Assessing Officer has been called by the ld. CIT(A) enquiry as to how addition u/s 68 of liabilities in every year was justified, particularly when there was decrease in such liabilities from year to year. The chart of such liabilities furnished ... giving break-up of liabilities from year to year had been enclosed and the AO was specifically required to justify as to how addition u/s 68 in respect of liabilities outstanding every year was justified particularly when there was a decrease in such liabilities from year to year

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Dhaneshwari Wood Products Ltd, Assam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 728/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. J. Bhide, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 68

ITO, Sonepat vs. Sh. Dharampal, Sonepat

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly

ITA 2569/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs Dharampal, Ward-1, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Sonepat. Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B Co No.151/Del/2018 (Ita No.2569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dharampal, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Ward-1, Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 16.02.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (Hereinafter Co No.151/Del/2018 Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.215/2013-14 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 25.03.2013 Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-3, Sonepat (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 68Section 69

account of additional cash deposited & interest accrued over it. In the last part of her order the issue of addition u/s 68 is connected with HUF & agricultural land, making the decision ambiguous. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

Marg Properties Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.555/Chny/2024 (िनधा<रण वष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Marg Properties Ltd. Dcit बनाम No.57/2B, Sri Sai Subhodaya Apartment Corporate Circle 4(1) East Coast Road, Thiruvanmiyur Chennai – 600 034 / Vs. Chennai – 600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcm-2942-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 12-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 Of The Act On 13-09-2021. The Assessee Has Failed To Appear Before Any Of The Lower Authorities. The Ld. Ar Pleaded For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 144Section 68

pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition u/s 68 for Rs.54 Crores. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal since assessee failed to make any submissions therein. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal

Income Tax Officer, Vejalpur vs. Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Memnagar

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

ITA 1058/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs A/9, Yashprabha Apartment, Ward-1(1)(3), Behind Janta Ice Cream, Ahmedabad Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad -380052 Pan : Aaccd 1831 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20109 of 2015), Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on other grounds relating to addition u/s 68 of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. While allowing the appeal, Ld. CIT (A) relied ... before us, Ld. DR stated that Ld. CIT(A) has failed in appreciating the fact that the reduction in loss on account of addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act will prevent assessee to carry forward the loss and set off in subsequent year’s income. Ld. DR heavily

Rakesh Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3571/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

cash sale and their deposit in the bank account consequent to demonization could not be basis for the rejection of account and addition u/s 68 of the Act. The Tribunal Bench at Vishakhapatnam in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 189 ITD 608 (Visaks) held as under ... instant case, the assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The assessing Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, 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

Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon vs. Sunray Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon Ble High Court. 2. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating On The Issue Of Share Application Money From The Persons From Whose Creditworthiness Could Not Be Proved. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating On The Issue Of Share Premium From The Person From Whose Creditworthiness Could Not Be Proved. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating On The Issue Of Share Application Money For Pending Allotment From The Persons From Whom Creditworthiness Could Not Be Proved.”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

opportunities to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.sec. 263 of the Act was passed on 23/12/2019 by making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 4. In between the assessee filed an appeal before the Co-ordinate Bench against the order passed u/s

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

capital gain as per facts & circumstances of such agricultural/exempt income, but Ld A.O & Ld CIT(A) have not considered same & so any addition u/s 68 (done by Ld A.O.) or u/s 69A( done by Ld.CIT(A) is not at all sustainable under provision of I.T Act 1961 once Appellant