JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act, in respect of monies deposited by the assessee with its banker during the demonetization period

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization and brought to tax under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act 2 1.1 That

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

demonetization period as arising out of unexplained sources(as against the accepted position in the past andthe subsequent periods) is to somehow trigger the provisions of section 115BBE read with section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. SATISH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

demonetization period, and the addition rightly made\nunder section 68.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee made the following\nsubmissions

PRADEEP TYAGI HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1),FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2017-18]

demonetization, the assessee was forced to deposit the receipts of Rs. 1 crore in cash in the bank. The details sought from the assessee have no 44AD. However, the action of the AO has been confirmed by NFAC by mentioning that the assessee has cooked the story of Sand-mining business and horticulture business, by creating relevant documents by generating

RAVINDER BAWEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

demonetization period. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the finding of AO where he has Invoked section 115BBE of IT Act In the order..It is submitted From AY 2017-18 on wards, tax is payable u/s 115BBE of IT Act where addition has been made u/s section 68

RAVINDER BAWEJA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NES DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

demonetization period. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the finding of AO where he has Invoked section 115BBE of IT Act In the order..It is submitted From AY 2017-18 on wards, tax is payable u/s 115BBE of IT Act where addition has been made u/s section 68

RAVINDER BAWEJA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

demonetization period. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the finding of AO where he has Invoked section 115BBE of IT Act In the order..It is submitted From AY 2017-18 on wards, tax is payable u/s 115BBE of IT Act where addition has been made u/s section 68

KULBHUSHAN SAHTANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kulbhushan Sahtani, Vs Ito, 2525/7, Bedanpura, Ward-51(5), Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. New Delhi Pan-Bknps5543L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Goyal, Ar & Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 Order

section 68 of the Act are not applicable. 10. The Co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Ramlal Jewellers (P.) Ltd. Reported in [2023] 154 taxmann.com 584 (Mumbai - Trib.) under similar circumstances, deleted the addition made u/s 68 on account of cash deposit in SBN during the demonetization

HEMANT KUMAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. KASTURI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

section 68 was justified and based on cogent material evidence and analysis. • The assessee completely failed to discharge onus of proof regarding the source, nature, and genuineness of cash credits-particularly as to customer identity and capacity. • Revised VAT returns, PAN avoidance, clustering of cash sales below the tax threshold, and unexplained cash deposits are clear badges of accommodation. • Survey

ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

section 68 of the Act and the Burden of proof under deeming provisions of Act is on the revenue after explanation with credible evidences had been offered by the appellant. Objection of the AO are under: i) The appellant’s cash in hand increased dramatically to Rs.2.43 Cr. on 8.11.2016 against average cash in hand of Rs. 10-15 lakhs

ATISH SINGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-43(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.1185/Del./2021 Atish Singla, New Delhi. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of footwear. He filed his return of income on 30.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.6,36,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

JMK EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey []

section 68 of the Act. Undisputedly, in the year under consideration, the assessee has declared total sales turnover of Rs. 163.98 crores. Out of which, as alleged by the Department, sales worth Rs. 109.07 crores were made during the month of November 2016, after declaration of demonetization

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

section 68 of the Act in respect of cash\ndeposited during demonetization period and other cash advances\nreceived by the appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. NAGPAL FABRICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Cash deposit in bank) Assessment year 2016-17 Assessee-company was engaged in jewellery business During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noted that immediately after demonetization

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MOHD RIZWAN, DELHI

In the result, addition of Rs

demonetization period is nothing but the undisclosed income of assessee which was shown under the garb of cash sales and thus it is liable to be added u/s 68 of the Act and taxable @ 60% under the provision of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. ARTEX TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of\nthe Act on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period\nwithout appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to furnish a\nsatisfactory explanation and discharge his onus to prove the sources of cash\ndeposits made in the Bank Accounts during the demonetization period within\nthe meaning of section