← 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

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sidh Granites Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 996/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Central Circle-2(3) Vs. M/S Sidh Granites Pvt. Room No. 803, 8 Th Floor, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. Pratishtha Bhavan, 21, 155B, Rabindra (Annexe), M.K.Road, Sarahi Burra Bazar, Churchgate, Kolkata – 400007 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecs2639G Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Anil Kumar Das Respondent By : Vimal Punamiya Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-48, Mumbai, Dated 06.01.2023 For A.Y. 2018- 19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Bogus Unsecured Loan Of Rs. 8,82,00,000/- Treated As Unexplained Cash Credit In The Books Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Alter, Modify, Rectify, Substitute Or Otherwise Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal At Or Before The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 3. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That On The Grounds Stated Above, The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A), Mumbai, May Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Restored.”

For Appellant: Anil Kumar DasFor Respondent: Vimal Punamiya
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 148Section 68

assessee filed a copy of the said affidavit before the lid AO Accordingly, it was pleaded that the sole basis for proposal for addition u/s 68 of the Act is only statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, which stool subsequently retracted by him. We find that the assessee from

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 68

case, Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act and charging tax as per section 115BBE of the Act, without considering the facts of the case. 5. That the appellant craves

J R Rice India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2852/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5593/94, Lahori Gate, Main Road, Circle-13(1), Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaccj1734F (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.2852/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 30.11.2022 In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1047739597(1) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019 By The Assessing Officer, Circle-13(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Addition Made In The Sum Of Rs.52,60,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

balance available with the assessee and, hence, in our considered opinion, there is absolutely no case made out by the Revenue for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. In the instant case, we find that none of the parameters mentioned in the SOP dated 21.02.2017 issued by the CBDT

Mohammed Anis Gulam Mohammed Memon, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 227/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.227/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Mohammed Anis Gulam Mohammed Vs. The Ito, Memon, Ward – 1(3)(7), 48, Memon Nagar Society, Nr. Surat Bharucha Apartment, Khandakuwa, Rander, Surat - 395005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aljpm3607K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

rejected them, with a cogent adverse findings and discernable line of reasoning, in order to arrive at a conclusion and to make the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, however, AO has failed to do so. For this, I rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Samarth Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 276/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Samarth Fincap Services Ward-7(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi F-2, Green Park Main, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcs7132F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

even after enquiries made by the assessing officer, when no adverse information was found, how there could be a justification of making the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. In this regard, the A.R. of the appellant has strongly relied upon various judicial pronouncements which are as follows ... assessee and even after enquiries made by the AO, when no adverse remark was made how there could be a justification of making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 9. The ld CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee has relied on the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Priyanshi Textile Private Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.199/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Priyanshi Textile Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), C/2, Plot No.74-79, Kim Sayan Vs. Surat, Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Road, Sunrise Interagated Textile Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Park, Kareli, Olpad, Surat- Gate, Surat-395001 394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy 4125 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Nfac/Ld. Cit(A) For Short] Dated 30.04.2022, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,72,33,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The Act As The Assessee Has Failed To Prove Bona Fide Of The Transaction Within The Meaning Of Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,08,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Share Premium U/S 68 Of The Act, Since The Assessee Failed To Prove The Source Of Source.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

previous cash withdrawal noticeable from bank statements. Based on these facts, it was contended that there was no case for any addition u/s 68 of the Act, pertaining to unsecured loans taken by the assessee. The Assessing Officer's remand report has not countered any of the factual explanation/submissions ... head “unexplained share application money”. 17. The ld CIT(A) after considering the above facts, observed that the Assessing Officer had already made additions u/s 68 which included Rs.1,08,000,00/-. The ld CIT(A) has deleted the whole addition of ITA No.199/SRT/2022 A. Y. 2013-14 M/s Priyanshi

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Villa Mode Export (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1444/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Circle-3(3)(1), M/S Villa Mode Exports (India) Pvt. Room No. 609, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 1023, 10Th Floor, Summit Business Churchgate, Bay, Near W.E.H. Metro Station, Mumbai-400020. Chakala Midc S.O., Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacv 7010 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M SubramnianFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, DR
Section 144Section 68

assessee. Therefore final show cause was given vide 142(1) dated 30.11.2018 that why addition u/s 142(1) dated 30.11.2018 that why addition u/s 68 of the IT Act may not 68 of the IT Act may not be made as genuineness of credit in the name of advances from

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Goel Jewellers Overseas Corp, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1597/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 68

That the cash receipts represent the sales which the appellant has already offered for taxation. • That there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 and tax the same u/s 115BBE again. 2. That the cross objector craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the ground ... there were sufficient purchases to support the stocks. The cash receipts represent the sales were already been offered to taxation, therefore, making addition u/s 68 of the Act will become double taxation on the assessee. Thus, Assessee's Representative by supporting the order of the CIT(A), sought for dismissal

Smt. Sarla Jain, Khandwa vs. ITO Ward 1 Khandwa, Khandwa

ITA 287/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

Kappac as what is called “penny stock” and capital gain declared by assessee therefrom as managed or non-genuine. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 8,46,732/-. Aggrieved by action of AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed ... receipt of search information; which the LAO has not done. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts ad in law in confirming addition u/s 68 by treating LTCG on shares as bogus gain.” 6. We would adjudicate these grounds in seriatim. Ground No. 1: 7. This is a legal

Aman Exports International, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

Madras High Court) (2021) share capital routed through companies only on paper without financial capacity not established creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction addition u/s 68 justified. 3. Neelkantha Commosales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 135 taxmann.com 326 (The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta) (2022) ITO was not precluded from enquiry ... same return has been filed on 06.4.2019 vide acknowledgment No 462063151060419 which has been assessed at Rs. 82,20,530/- by making addition u/s 68 of Rs 15,00,000/- Lacs as well as Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 101505/-. That after receipt of notice the assessee filled

Manasi Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Since the sales and other records were in order, and because the cash sales were already offered to tax by Assessee, no separate addition u/s 68 can be made for depositing the cash which was realized from such sales. Reliance was placed on: - CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas

DCIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Luxora Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit-15(1)(2) V. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd 459, Ayakar Bhawan Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Nirmal Galaxy Lbs Road M.K. Road, Mumbai- 40020 Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

written submissions, for the sake of clarity, same is reproduced below: - Page No. | 2 Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd “Ground No.1 to 4: Addition u/s 68 at Rs. 15.86.06,125/-on account of Share Capital Contribution from Aanya Properties (1) Ltd., Mauritius. A.O Para 4 Page

Dinesh Kumar Dixit, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 167/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 68

absence of any explanation from the assessee, this amount of Rs.70,31,100/- was treated as unexplained income of the assessee and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made. Further, in absence of books of accounts of the assessee, a disallowance of Rs.19,30,220/- was also made, wherein ... increase in capital account of the proprietor for Rs.6,43,932/-, the same was also taken as unexplained income of the assessee and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made. An another addition 4 pertaining to increase in unsecured loan for Rs.38,719/- was made u/s 68

Akash Promotors Developer Private Limited, 2385, Akashdeep Complex vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)

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

ITA 361/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Your Honours In The Offline Mode On 30.05.2023 Against The Order Dated Passed By Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac Delhi U/S 250 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. Such Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) Was Served On The Appellant On 29.03.2023, Thus The Appeal Against The Said Order Was Supposed To Have Been Filed By The Appellant By 28.05.2023, However Though The Appeal Was Instituted On Time Through The Online Mode, Submission Of Appeal In The Offline Mode Got Delayed By 2 Days, As The Appeal Physically Has Been Filed On 30.05.2023 For The Reasons As Explained Below:

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatiya (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

attended from time to time and filed required details. An assessment order in the case of assessee mad u/s 143(3) by making addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 6,83,000/- the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) who restricted the addition

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anantnath Silk Mills Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1776/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 68

light of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act as well as deleting the interest paid by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,72,662/-. Therefore, the appeal

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Manuvel Malabar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1011/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Manuvel Malabar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-01, Shop No.29, Ndmc Dlf Mall, New Delhi. Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi – 110 023. Pan: Aaicm0964E

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

stands duly explained and there is no case for making any addition u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. We find that similar issue was also considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House in ITA 613/2010 wherein

Medium Packaging Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7747/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Medium Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O S.B.G & Co., Cas, Ward-16(3), 9, Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, New Delhi. Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Aafcm6578B

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 68Section 80G

routed through the same entities who have given money on account of repayment of loan to Smt. Kamlesh Goel. Accordingly, he upheld the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the sum of Rs.17,80,000/- with respect to loan received from Smt. Kamlesh Goel. b) With regard ... account to give the said loan. Accordingly, he disbelieved the credit worthiness and upheld the action of the ld. AO in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act with respect to this loan. 10. Let us examine as to whether the assessee had fulfilled the source of source with

Movefast Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

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

ITA 6183/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Movefast Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-1(5), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad. Sector-20, Faridabad. Pan: Aaicm2607C

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Rs.10 lakh in AY 2014- 15 and, accordingly, these sums of Rs.55 lakhs, in any case, cannot be the subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was also pointed out that the assessee had obtained a valuation report from a valuer who had arrived at the fair ... opinion of the ld.CIT(A), the said sum of Rs.17 lakhs also should be subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act which was not made by the ld. AO and, accordingly, a notice of enhancement in terms of 6 section 251(1)(a) of the Act was issued

Maakhan Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6180/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Maakhan Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, 1066, Baba Nagar, Ward-1(5), Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad. Old Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 002. Pan: Aaicm2610H

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Asst Year 2014-15 and, accordingly, these sums of Rs.62,50,000/-, in any case, cannot be the subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was also pointed out that the assessee had obtained a valuation report from a valuer who had arrived at the fair market ... that a sum of Rs.62,50,000/- was received prior to 01.04.2014 and, hence, the same would be obviously outside the purview of addition u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had rightly granted relief in this regard u/s 68 of the Act. The remaining

Sandeep Maloo, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

assesse. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the at the outset the ld. Counsel vehemently contended that the impugned addition u/s 68 was made without any incriminating material found and seized from the search action in the case of the assesse. The addition was made purely ... decided by the Hon'ble ITAT in which the sole statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain as not found justifiable to raise the addition u/s 68 of the Act. There are following cases: 1. ITA No 5589/M/2017 in case of ACIT vs MS Shreedham Builders 2. ПTA No. 5954/M/2016