“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

conclusion that the appellant could not establish source for cash deposits into bank account during demonetization period. Thus, rejected arguments and made additions u/s. 68 of the Act, for Rs. 90,86,86,500/- towards cash deposits to bank. 9. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred ... also the net withdrawals of the cash from the Bank and brought the entire cash deposits of Rs.90,80,86,500/- as addition u/s 68 of the Act. The entire cash deposit has been taxed as unexplained cash credit even the same has been supported by the cash bills, stock

The DCIT Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. West Side Cars Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1398/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1398/Ahd/2019 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 The D.C.I.T, West Side Cars Pvt.Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), Vs. A/1-4, Solitaire Corporate Park, Ahmedabad. Nr. Divya Bhaskar, Makarba, S.G Highway, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani,Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 68

vehemently contended that merely because on the basis of receipt of cheques the amounts were shown as share application pending allocation of shares addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made. It is observed that the copies of the bank statement, confirmation from the directors and copies of bank ... assessee were credited by the assessee in its books of accounts, however, later on the cheques bounced and the entries were reversed. Addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the AO which were deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT. In the case at hand, the fact is that

Prathishta Business Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 21/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.21 & S.A. No.6/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Prathishta Business Vs. Income Tax Officer Solutions (P) Ltd Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aahcp2943F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

proved the identity and capacity of the loan creditors by filing sufficient documentary evidence and genuineness of the transaction is not doubted the addition u/s 68 is not justified. In his alternate contention he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary

Vishal Balwani, Indore vs. ITO-3(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 478/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivishal Balwani Ito-3(1) 47, Shanti Niketan, Behind Indore Vs. Bombay Hospital, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abfpb 5263J Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

Section 148Section 68

appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition U/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash deposits in bank account amounting to Rs. 33,26,105. ITANo.478/Ind/2023 Vishal Balwani 2.That on the facts

DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Luxora Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2457/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit 15(1)(2) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Private Limited Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Room No. 126-B, 1St Floor Nirmal Galaxy Lbs Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. K.P. Dewani Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

money pending allotment of Rs. 4,17,26,611/-. The very same amount Rs. 4,17,26,611/- has again been subjected to addition u/s 68 of the Act during impugned A.Y 2014- 15. This amounts to double addition, apart from the fact that it was not the credit received

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 145/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

appellant could not explain the purpose and utilisation of such credits. However, the AO failed to take cognisance of the fact that addition u/s 68 of the Act is to be made if the appellant doesn't offer any explanation regarding the source and nature of credits received ... appellant could not explain the purpose and utilisation of such credits. However, the AO failed to take cognisance of the fact that addition u/s 68 of the Act is to be made if the appellant doesn't offer any explanation regarding the source and nature of credits received

Celkon Impex Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 46/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Celkon Impex Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohad. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Mohad. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 28Section 69C

regard to the addition under the head of Trade Payables, the appellant submits as: Without prejudice, the NFAC erred in making a double addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 30,17,688/- in respect of unverified Trade Payables to Flash Distribution Private Limited, which

Mir Murtuza Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 109/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Mir Murtuza Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aqapa0170F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

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

Video Conference to present his case. However, the Assessing Officer brushed aside the submissions, request of the assessee and proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act as per the material available on record. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Soubhik Exports Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata / N E-Assessment Centre, Delhi.

ITA 1243/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 68

case laws referred to and relied on by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in the impugned appellate order in support of confirmation of additions u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 are distinguishable on facts and under the law and so the ratio of decisions of those cases ... before the ld. CIT(A) but even after making detailed submissions and placing evidence on record, could not succeed on the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act and the addition for unexplained unsecured loan was confirmed. As far as the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is concerned

Soubhik Exports Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata.

ITA 1242/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

same need to be allowed. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities and direct the deletion of the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 19. The Ld. AR has also brought to our notice that similar case came up before the Tribunal (LTCG claim on sale ... hold that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both on facts and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the LTCG on sale of shares of M/s TTML alleging it to be bogus. We therefore direct

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

same need to be allowed. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities and direct the deletion of the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 18. The Ld. AR has also brought to our notice that similar issue came up before the Tribunal (LTCG claim on sale ... hold that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both on facts and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the LTCG on sale of shares of M/s TTML 37 A.Y. 2013-14 Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia alleging

M/S. Unified Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, Ld. JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Commissioner. However, the ld. Commissioner without paying any heed to the request and the details filed by the Assessee, decided the issue qua addition u/s 68 of the Act against the Assessee. 3 M/s. Unified Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative refuted the claim ... peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that the ld. Commissioner though passed the impugned order on merits and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and also taken into consideration the rectification order dated 15.6.2020 passed by the AO, whereby the amount of Rs.1

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

making addition does not arise. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities and direct the deletion of the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 19. The Ld AR also brought to our notice the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITA 3381/Del/2017 ... hold that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both on facts and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the proceeds derived on sale of shares of KLL and AGSSL alleging it to be bogus. We therefore direct

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

making addition does not arise. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities and direct the deletion of the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 16 A.Y. 2012-13 Sheetal Rupesh Savla 18. The Ld AR also brought to our notice the decision of Tribunal ... hold that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both on facts and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the proceeds derived on sale of shares of AGSSL alleging it to be bogus. We therefore direct

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

same need to be allowed. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities and direct the deletion of the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 19. The Ld. AR has also brought to our notice that the similar case came up before the Tribunal (LTCG claim ... hold that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred both on facts and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the proceeds derived on sale of shares of KGN and AGSSL alleging it to be bogus. We therefore direct

Orris Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 720/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.720/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Orris Trade Link Pvt Ltd…..….…………............…...……………....Appellant Shop No.B-7-In,C-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, South Delhi-110048. [Pan: Aaaco8097N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata……...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakant Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notices Issued On Different Dates & Even Efforts Were Also Made To Inform The Assessee Telephonically. Under The Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Present Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. The Ld. Dr Has Brought Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That In This Case, There Were Two Issues Involved Before

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

unlisted equity namely Amba Shakti Ispat Ltd. AO noted that assessee could not explain the creditworthiness of investment and therefore made the addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant submits that assessee has received Rs. 2,56,00,000 as the repayment of loan from Amba Metals which ... ambit of Section 68. In the given facts, I am of the considered opinion that the AO erred in making the addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act. The addition is directed to be added. The ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed.” 4. A perusal of the above reproduced part

Kuvempu Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 115/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha .T.L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 18Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)

members were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. However the assessing officer did not make any further enquiry and made addition u/s. 68 which is not justified. In support of his argument, he relied on the judgment of the decision of Coordinate bench in ITA No. 329/Bang/2023 order dated ... 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

Kuvempu Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 114/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha .T.L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 18Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)

ACIT Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Anand Swarup Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 2371/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Acit Circle-1(3)(1), Vs. Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta, (Intl. Tax), Ibc M-38/1 Middle Circle, Room No. 501, Connaught Place, D-Block,Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 001 New Delhi 110 002 Pan Aappg3467Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 68

draft assessment order within the prescribed time limit. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para