UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3),, MUMBAI vs. FA CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

68,700/–. 3.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the in-site portal, i.e., the internal databa site portal, i.e., the internal database of the Income se of the Income-tax Department, Department, Department, indicating indicating indicating that that that the the the assessee assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained “Cash credit” like loans, deposits and advances, share capital, etc. The core condition for applicability of deeming provisions of section 68 is “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee……” has to be satisfied and the word “sum” means “amount of money

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

unexplained “Cash credit” like loans, deposits and advances, share capital, etc. The core condition for applicability of deeming provisions of section 68 is “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee……” has to be satisfied and the word “sum” means “amount of money

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

money in its hands. On this basis, relying upon several decisions, it has been claimed that the provisions of Section 68 do not apply to such loans at all and no part of such loans could have been assessed as unexplained

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

money in its hands. On this basis, relying upon several decisions, it has been claimed that the provisions of Section 68 do not apply to such loans at all and no part of such loans could have been assessed as unexplained

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

money falling within the ambit of section 68 or 69. These sections are of universal application and do not make any distinction between a resident or non-resident. Therefore, there is a conflict between the provisions of section 5(2) on the one hand and the provisions of section 68 or 69 on the other hand with reference

M/S.FROHAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Held, yes (In favor of assessee).” 2. ITO vs. Saffron ComtradePvt Ltd. (supra) “Section 68 of the Act is not applicable on the facts of the assessee^s case, since no money

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

unexplained money\nand that too when profit derived from\nthose sales proceeds was already taxed as\npart of sales\nVs\nIncome-tax Officer\nIT APPEAL NO. 928 (JP.)\nOF 2024 [ASSESSMENT\nYEAR 2017-18]\nSection 68, read with section

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

unexplained cash credit. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Before us, the main ground raised by the assessee is that no addition could have been sustained under section 68 of the Act, since no sum of money

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

unexplained money of the assessee and assessed\nthe same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the\nabove said deposit as per provisions of section

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

unexplained money of the assessee and assessed\nthe same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the\nabove said deposit as per provisions of section

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

unexplained money of the assessee and assessed\nthe same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the\nabove said deposit as per provisions of section

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

unexplained money of the assessee and assessed\nthe same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the\nabove said deposit as per provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

unexplained “Cash credit” like loans,\ndeposits and advances, share capital, etc. The core condition for\napplicability of deeming provisions of section 68 is “Where any sum is\nfound credited in the books of an assessee......” has to be satisfied and the\nword “sum” means “amount of money

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

unexplained “Cash credit” like loans,\ndeposits and advances, share capital, etc. The core condition for\napplicability of deeming provisions of section 68 is “Where any sum is\nfound credited in the books of an assessee......” has to be satisfied and the\nword “sum” means “amount of money

UMASHANKER SHIWAPRASAD MODI,THANE vs. CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Umashanker Modi Income Tax Department, Office No. D, 12Th Floor, Mbc Park, National Faceless Appeals Vs. D Building, Near Hypercity, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Ghodbunder Road, Kasarvadavali, Thane West, Thane- 400615. Pan No. Aabpm 8785 D Appellant Respondent

section 68 wherein the loans taken from the related parties were added as unexplained cash cre taken from the related parties were added as unexplained cash cre taken from the related parties were added as unexplained cash credit which amounting to Rs 11,10,93,681/ amounting to Rs 11,10,93,681/-. The Ld.AO had mentioned in . The Ld.AO

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

money by way of bogus long-term capital gain - Held, yes [Paras 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] 36. In the case of Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 674 (Mumbai Trib.) held as under. Section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share dealings) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee