“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

have been duly served on them. Mere non production of share holder companies director is argued to be no valid reason for making addition u/s 68 of the Act dehors voluminous evidences filed which has Page 11 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri ... dismissal of additional ground application. However, on the merit of the case, he argued that without production of director of share holder companies, addition u/s 68 may please be confirmed and accordingly, he relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused

Shree Lakshmi Mahila Souharda Credit Co Operative Limited, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 1021/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale

Section 115BSection 249(4)(b)Section 68Section 80P

demonetization period, whereas the assessee was not authorized by the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act as per the discussion made in para No.6.2 of his order of Rs.34,72,164/- and applied tax rate u/s 115BBE ... assessee has complied. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment and made disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act and further made addition u/s 68 of the Act on the cash deposits accepted in SBNs from members . On perusal of Form No.35 at Sl.No.8 and 9, the assessee

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report of SEBI report dated 19.12.2014 we find that the said order was revoked by SEBI by the final order ... stock exchange and demat accounts and also it has been claimed that in one case there is a loss and there is no addition u/s 68 of the Act but without going into the merits of the case even on legal ground itself, we, in view settled judicial procedure referred

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Akik Marketing India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), New Delhi

ITA 4559/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2010-11 Akik Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, N-39, Ground Floor, Ward 2(1), Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan : Aaaca6579K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca & Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68

recorded are vague, lacking tangible material/ reasonable cause and justification. 4. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition u/s 68 amounting Rs. 3,78,68000/- on the basis of Hon'ble supreme court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel ... without making proper investigation from the other party whereby assessee has discharged the onus by providing relevant documents 7. Because the action for addition u/s 68 amounting Rs.1,14,00,000/- (out of total addition of Rs. 3,78,68,000/-) is being challenged on facts and law while

Coral Venture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chhajed and Mr. Hitesh RathodFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessment proceedings were completed on 19.12.2017 after making addition completed on 19.12.2017 after making addition completed on 19.12.2017 after making addition u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.47 lakhs. u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.47 lakhs. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld

M/S. Delighted Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcir, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

share purchaser company The AO wanted the personal appearance of the directors of the purchaser companies. As there was no compliance this addition u/s 68 is made. In our view this is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

company Sindictum, applying for shares at such a huge and out of disproportionate premium, is required to be investigated independently and addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, if any, should be made as per provisions of I.T. Act, 1961, in this regard. vi) It is observed that although

Creative Realmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

ITA 599/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

from cash sale credited in books. of such cash found was from cash sale credited in books. Thus the AO had rightly made addition u/s 68 being Thus the AO had rightly made addition u/s 68 being Thus the AO had rightly made addition u/s 68 being unexplained cash credit ... rescue of the assessee in treating the said credit as explained. 3. Further, the appellant claimed that there is double taxation by making addition u/s 68. The same is not true. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Nishit Capinvest P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1312/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee were examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. However, he was not satisfied with such explanations and he made an addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 in respect of share premium amounting to Rs. 38,96,00,000/- as well as addition ... complete link of circumstances. Mere inference of Ld. AO, out of valid and reported transactions to question the source of source for addition u/s 68 could not have been sustained by learned CIT(A). Consequently, the grounds of the Revenue have no substance. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order

Prarambh Multitrade (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1014/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1014/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Prarambh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd..........................…...……………....Appellant Room No.401A, 154, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaccp8985C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 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 24.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Company.

Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

facts of the case by not considering the fact that case was reopened on the basis of reasons recorded for making addition u/s 68 but the addition was made u/s 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - NFAC erred

Murari Clothing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6928/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

these entities and the Inspector had given adverse report about such entities. Therefore, the AO treating the same as unexplained cash credits made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before us, the assessee has not placed any evidence to rebut the findings of the lower authorities. In the absence

Alpha Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 2615/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpha Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-15(1)(1), 42, Zarna Apartments Nahur Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Village Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mulund West-400080 Maharishi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aajca 1768 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. DR

Section 250

make an addition of Rs.11,68,000/ Alpha Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 4 Alpha Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. further made addition u/s 68 of the Act towards cash deposits of further made addition u/s 68 of the Act towards cash deposits of further made addition u/s 68

Rajesh G Jain, Mira-Bhayandar vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thane Park

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

ITA 150/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Lalit MunoyatFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 250Section 254(1)

assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases made during the year & payments made during the year. The AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and did not invoke provisions of sec. 41(1) of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has shown that the payments

Anilkumar Harishankar Pandey, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.587/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Anilkumr Harishankar Pandey Income Tax Officer, Okit Bi,38/A, Kailash Nagar Vs. Ward-2(3)(1), Surat, Room Society, Godadara Road, No.614, Aayakar Bhawan, Surat–394211 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akopp 3431C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Counsel further submitted that additions so made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act, is not sustainable in law. The addition u/s 68 of the Act can be sustained only when the assessee maintains his books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain books of accounts, therefore

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kaka Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

thereon. 8.4 Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, considering the discussions in the forgoing paragraphs, the addition u/s 68 of the Act is not tenable as nothing has been substantiated or brought on record to probe the same as bogus and appellants

The DCIT, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Clayris Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 287/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 68

rebutted or discredited the evidences regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction from this depositor. Hence, there is no ground for making addition u/s 68 in the hand of the appellant. Utilization of this loan by the appellant cannot determine whether the said loan was genuine

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(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

The ACIT Central-Ujjain, Ujjain vs. M/S Italian Edibles P Ltd, Indore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Italian Edibles Pvt. Ujjain Ltd. Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Palda Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aacci 2746N Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

Sponge Ltd 379 ITR 330, the assessing officer treated the commodity trading profit shown by the assessee as unexplained cash credit and made addition u/s 68 of the Act. The view taken by the assessing officer has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. This case does not pertain