← 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

V City Builders and Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3289/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal & V City Builders & Ito-30(3)(5), Developers Llp, Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ 10 Jayambbe Co-Op Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai-400051. 3Rd Liberty Garden X Lane, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfv3123C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwalkumar Chavhan Sr. DR
Section 148

City Builders and Developers LLP, Mumbai b) The hon. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition u/s 68. c) Your appellant submits that he had obtained unsecured loans in course of his business by account payee cheques from persons with credibility and had fully discharged

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

580/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 C.O. No. 17/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Navin Constructions & Credit Pvt. Ltd. 5 /shell companies and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.10,07,00,000/-. Apart from this, the ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed the claim of deduction u/s ... material placed before us as well as case-laws relied upon by both the sides. The revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.10,07,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer towards unexplained unsecured loans. We observe that during the year

Heena Textile Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 4(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3326/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3326/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Heena Textile Ltd बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(3) Office No. 301, B-65, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Standford Plaza, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Opp Citi Mall, Nr. Morya House, Mumbai- 400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch0454N (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.07.2023 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Expense To The Tune Of Rs.12,30,870/- Which According To The Assessee Was Incurred During The Normal Course Of Business. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.2,73,97,900/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (DR)
Section 144Section 37Section 68Section 69

Revenue has not assailed this decision of Ld CIT(A)]. 5. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act, the unsecured loan shown by assessee to the tune of Rs.2,73,97,900/-. According to the AO, since the unsecured

Hansa Girish Shah, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3303/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

completed on 22.12.2019 u/s 143(3 completed on 22.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act, t ) of the Act, the Assessing additions, firstly addition u/s 68 of the Act Officer made two addition addition u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.6,93,069/ Rs.6,93,069/- for credit against ... also sustained the addition. 4.1 Before us, the Ld. , the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitte for the assessee submitted that addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified because source of the addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified because source of the addition u/s 68

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 17. In a case wherein the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the lenders of loan to assessee did not turn up before him [AO], the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

Pushpa Devi Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, Appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2600/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.2593/Del/2022, A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. A.O. and the CIT(A) erred in making/confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of income from undisclosed sources. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, while admitting the additional documents/evidence filed by the assessee ... 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

Pramod Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -32, Delhi

In the result, Appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2597/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.2593/Del/2022, A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. A.O. and the CIT(A) erred in making/confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of income from undisclosed sources. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, while admitting the additional documents/evidence filed by the assessee ... 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

Poonam Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2593/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.2593/Del/2022, A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. A.O. and the CIT(A) erred in making/confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of income from undisclosed sources. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, while admitting the additional documents/evidence filed by the assessee ... 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

Janhavi Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT-6(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1260/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 involving proviso to section 68 inserted w.e.f. A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y.2011-12. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 15 lakhs u/s

Income Tax Officer 41(1)(3), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Omsai Prints, Kalyan Bypass, Thane Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3005/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

completed u/s 143(3) of the Act u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.05.2021, the Assessing Officer made he Assessing Officer made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of four parties namely (i) addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of four parties namely addition u/s

Saurav Vij, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2015-16 Saurav Vij, Vs. Ito, Ward 35(2), 8/9, Block No.41, Delhi Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-1100 07 Pan :Adepv7506K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

income assessed is illegal and bad in law. 6. That the Ld. AO erred in making in law and on facts the addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 15BBE ignoring and without rebutting the relevant material and evidence furnished

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

huge addition on a loss making company with debilitating consequence. Thus, he submitted that the assessee is aggrieved by the above arbitrary addition u/s 68 rws 115BBE of the Act of Rs.l50,13,10,676/-, levy of interest u/s 234B of Rs.23,12,38,305/-, u/s 234C of Rs.3

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 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 18.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.98,81,550/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

LTCG. Therefore, the claim of LTCG need to be allowed. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The Ld. AR has 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 M/s Sunrise Asian Technologies Ltd alleging it to be bogus

Purus Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 368/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Purus Builders Private Ltd., Vs Ito, A-404, Mayfair Apartment, Ward-20(2), Plot No.96, New Delhi. Patpar Ganj, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp1713C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-36 (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short ‘The Ld. Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-36/10130/2016-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-20(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. As The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Has Appeared For The Assessee. Record Shows That Notices Have Been Issued Repeatedly & Also Representative Have Appeared & Sought Adjournment. None Has Appeared Today. No Notice Is Justified. The Ld. Dr Was Heard Who Supported The Findings Of The Ld. Tax Authorities Below.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 131(2)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee was selected for scrutiny. The ld. AO examined the transaction and found the same to be not well explained and addition u/s 68 was made. The ld. AO had issued notices u/s 131 and 133(6) of the Act and a report was also called from the Inspector about

Amarjit Kaur Surinder Singh Kochhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjit Kaur Surinder Vs. Ito Ward-12(1)(1), Singh Kochhar, Aayakar Bhawan, 4, Plot No.667, 4Th Floor M.K.Road, Satguru Sundari, Mumbai-400020. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Pan/Gir No. : Agspk6461F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: ShriManiJain&ShriPrateekJain.ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe. Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee, findings of the AO and in respect of addition u/s 68 & U/sec69C of the Act, the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order

ACIT, Centrl Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Anu Bajaj, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1943/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Anu Bajaj, Central Circle, House No. 21, Ghaziabad Sector-5, Raj Kumar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpb5893G Co No. 83/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 1943/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Anu Bajaj, Vs. Acit, House No. 21, Central Circle, Sector-5, Raj Kumar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpb5893G Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

adjudicated accordingly. ) 5.11 In the grounds of appeal no (iii), (iii)a) & (iii)b), the appellant submits that Ld. AO has made addition u/s 68 of Act of Rs. 87,02,837/- on account of unsecured loans taken from M/s. AK Beverages (Rs 58,26,565/-), M/s. Bajaj Prime Fuels

Ganesh Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, C. R. Building, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. AO that it had not received any such sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from M/s Shubh Supplier Ltd. or any other company controlled by Sh. Beni Prasad Lahotia. In respect of this contention, the assessee also enclosed the complete bank statements for the perusal of the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, however did not heed to this factual contention of the assessee and proceeded to treat the sum of Rs.19,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee.

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

bank accounts of the assessee. Hence, the basic pre- requisite of any sum found credited in the books of account to warrant an addition u/s 68 of the Act miserably fails in the instant case. Hence, I hold that no addition per se could be made u/s 68

ACIT, Circle- 2, Noida vs. Presidency Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6657/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made by A.O. without appreciating the fact that the addition u/s 68 of the Act was made due to failure on part of assessee to submit the confirmation from the lender, proof of source of income outside India, proof ... therefore, allowed the appeal relating to the addition of Rs. 81,06,247/- and deleted the same. 15. In so far as addition u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) analyzed the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and found the same were also furnished before

Param Gold, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2467/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Param Gold बिधम/ Ito, Ward-42(1)(4) Shop No.1, Hansa Heritage, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Mathurdas Road, Kandivali Kurla Complex, Bandra (W), Maharashtra-400067. (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfp5462K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2024 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)-51, Mumbai Dated 31.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,72,90,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. AR)
Section 68

this particular reason was also irrelevant and misplaced on the given facts of the present case, particularly to make the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. He submitted that, the burden cast on an assessee u/s 68 of the Act, is to substantiate the nature and course of credits

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Shri Kalpesh Kantilal Gada, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle Hariya a/w Ms. SimoniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 44Section 44ASection 68

same does not include bank passbook or bank statement. A conjoint reading of above provisions would thus lead to the conclusion that the addition u/s 68 can be made only where any amount is found credit in the books as defined u/s 2(12A) of the Act maintained ... explanation offered is rejected by the Assessing Officer. In other words maintains of books by the assessee is sine qua non for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Since section 44AD does not obligates the assessee to maintain books, the provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked where