Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ITO v. RTG Exchange Limited (2023) 103 ITR 45 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Considering the lapses on establishing creditworthiness of the investors by the Assessee and verification of the year of payment by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. [S. 148, 250]

MK and SK Medicare (P.) Ltd v. ITO; (2023) 103 ITR 58 (SN)(Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital and share premium-The Tribunal considering gaps in the assessee’s documentation for the share premium being treated as unexplained income by the Assessing officer, remands for fresh examination.

ITO v. AMS Trading & Investment (Mum) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share premium and share application-Cross examination was not provided-Confirmation letter, PAN Card, Audited financial statements, bank statement reflecting the transactions, copy of share application form, copy of Form .No 2 filed with the R.O.C. etc-Deletion of addition is affirmed. [S. 132]

ACIT v. Ramlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd [2023] 154 taxmann.com 584 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 68: Cash credits-Deonetisation-Cash deposited during demonetization period-With regard to the availability of stock and quantity of items shown in the stock register and the corresponding sales, no addition can be made-Books of account not rejected-Addition is not justified .[S. 69,131, 133(6), 145]

DCIT v. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 68:Cash credits-Demonetisation-Jewellery/gold cash sales-Cash deposited during dem`onetisation-Assessee provided PAN and complete address of buyers, with stock register-Lack of inquiry by AO u/s. 131 or 133(6)-Held that addition ought to be deleted as nothing proved against assessee.[S. 131,133(6)]

Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. ACIT (2023) 151 taxmann.com 339 / 104 ITR 519 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Demonetisation-Large Cash deposited during demonetization period-Assessee claimed that cash deposited from sale proceeds. Bill wise details submitted, books of accounts accepted, each sale bill less than Rs. 2 Lakhs. Addition cannot be made merely because bills did not contain name of customers. Addition is deleted .[S.115BBE]

Dy. CIT v .Heaven Associates (2023) 154 taxmann.com 595 / 105 ITR 186 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-No discovery of incriminating material-Assessment on basis of third-party statement-Addition is deleted. [S. 132]

Girish Kumar and Sons v. ITO (2023) 155 taxmann.com 208 / 105 ITR 424 (Chand) (Trib)

S. 68: Cash credits-Cash sales-Trade advances-Addition made on mere conjectures and surmises-Unsustainable.

Deepak Jain v .ITO (2023)104 ITR 61 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus expenses-Un accounted monies-Sub-contractor-Job work-Shown 8% of the receipts-Addition is deleted-[S. 115BBE,132]

Dy. CIT v. Vigyan Lodha (2023)104 ITR 210 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus long-term capital gain-Commmission-Accomodation entries-Sale of shares-Admission by third parties-Report from investigation wing-Neither the statement nor an opportunity cross examination was not given-Deletion of addition by CIT(A) is affirmed.[S. 10(38), 45, 131, 132(4)]