← 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

Vibrant Shelter Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 285/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are illegal and liable to be deleted according to law. 4. Without prejudice, the quantum of addition U/s 68 is miscalculated which deserves to be corrected as per law and further be restricted to "peak credit" in the interest of justice

Dinesh Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related to the addition u/s 68 of the Income to the addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before

Dinesh Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related to the addition u/s 68 of the Income to the addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before

Dinesh Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1148/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related to the addition u/s 68 of the Income to the addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before

Dinesh Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir, Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1147/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh Shah (Huf), Dy. Cit, Central Circle-3(4), Flat No. 434, Shabri Shikhar, Mumbai. Vs. R.C. Marg, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aadhs 0544 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related The grounds raised in the appeals are identical, mostly related to the addition u/s 68 of the Income to the addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Before

Spt Infotech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

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

ITA 1751/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Y0Gesh Kumar Usspt Infotech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Central Circle 30, D-15, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aagcs3886B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishanan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2024 Date Of Order : 13.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

above, the Ld CIT erred in upholding the addition of Rs.42,00,00,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 without appreciating that the modus operandi relied extensively in impugned orders is never co-related even remotely to the facts of the present case

Anil Dhingra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2778/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaanil Dhingra, Vs. Ito, Rt-12 Royal Ton Ward-30(1), Tower, Dlf Phase-5, New Delhi Gurgaon, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aappd9828G

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

That the CIT-A was also not justified in sustaining the addition by ignoring the fact that before making the impugned addition u/s 68 of the IT Act, no show cause notice has been issued by the assessing officer. 3. That the CIT (A) was not justified in passing ... raised by the assessee states that no show cause notice was issued by the ld AO before proceedings to frame the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment proceedings. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, since

Alchemist Touchnology, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

ITA 1689/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshalchemist Touchnology, Vs. Acit, Building No. 23, Nehru Central Circle-20, Place, Alchemist House, Delhi South Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaica1617Q Assessee By : Shri N. K. Lal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Lal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 245D(1)Section 69

avoid tax incidence which have been introduced in its books. Such unexplained money introduced in its books through FDI route is liable for addition u/s 68 of the Act since the money has been sent to secure such funds through FDI route, the same has to be considered as unexplained

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

additions at that point of names of other persons. time), nor there is a finding of the AO to that effect. The entire addition u/s 68 was subject matter of penalty proceedings during course of which the impugned order has been passed. Nowhere, the AO asked to appellant ... said 17 persons. Had the AO passed order imposing penalty just after the assessment order, certainly, all the sums considered for the addition u/s 68 would have been dealt with in impugned order. Therefore, implicitly, entire sums consisting of addition u/s 68 have been dealt with

Dr. Vijay Prakash Khichar, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer W(4) Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeisallowed for statistical purpose

ITA 52/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vaishnavi Joshi (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

made addition in the hands of the assessee by holding as under:- Return income of the assessee company 6,52,530/- Add: Addition u/s 68 as discussed above 10,00,000/- Assessed total income 16,52,530/- 6 Khichar and Dular Hospitals (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Being aggrieved

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

ITA 5/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 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

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

interest expenditure u/s 57 of the Act at Rs.3,01,034/-; 4 I.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019; Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata (iii) Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained credit received in the form of sale of equity shares of penny stock companies ... Total addition – Rs.48,21,809/- 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) only raising two grounds. Firstly, for addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.33,00,000/- and consequently disallowance of expenditure u/s 57(3) of the Act at Rs.3,01,034/-. The assessee

ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. D B Distributors, Jaipur

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

ITA 808/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

Returns and bank statements have been furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disregarded these details filed before him and made an addition u/s 68 of the Act. The appellant has furnished copies of all these details viz, confirmation letter from loan creditors, there ITRs and bank statement before

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

hereby deleted. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed. 16. Ground No. 7 & 8 are against the addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.1,65,00,000/-. Facts relevant to this issue are that the ld. Assessing Officer noticed during the year that there is a liability

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3914/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3914/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Amit Jain, Acit 151, Savita Vihar, Delhi. Vs. Central Circle-6 Pan No.Aafpj5124R Room No.364, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153ASection 68

Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submits that the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the creditor has been proved by the assessee and, therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act is not warranted. 7. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. Heard rival submissions, perused the evidences

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

68 of the Act to the satisfaction of the AO, otherwise he shall be free to proceed against the assessee company and make addition u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 6.4 Now, in the light of above, it has to be seen that to what extent, appellant

ITO, Ward- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saivi Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

noted in this case, the Appellant is in the business of Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) from last about a decade. Regarding the addition u/s 68 made by the AO, as per the details arguments made at the assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings, It emerges that ... Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere non- production of the lender/shareholder cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68. 4.4 In the instant case, the AO has not dealt with any of the submissions of appellant as to why AO does not believe the confirmations and other

True-Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1158/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6.52 Crore received by the assessee towards share capital and share premium ... Jama-Kharchi/paper/shell companies with the help of which assessee company has routed its unaccounted income. He thus, prayed that the addition u/s 68 of the Act may please be confirmed. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The first issue for our consideration

Vsft Quilts & Pillows Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Mallcom vs. Ft Gloves Private Limited ), Kolkatavs.ITO, Ward - 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1215/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

provision of Section 68 of the Act. Mere, non-appearance in persuasion of notice U/s 131 cannot be the main criteria of addition U/s 68 of the Act. Considering above, we set aside the appeal order. The addition U/s 68 of the Act amount