ITA 662/MUM/2026
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The assessee-company filed its return of income on 11.10.2023, declaring an income of ₹18,90,720/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the increase in share capital and large investments in properties. The assessee was required to substantiate the increase in share capital by filing relevant documentary evidence including the source of capital introduced. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.…
Decision in favour of
Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue
Legal Issues
- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act?
- 2. Whether the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under section 68 to establish the identity and creditworthiness of M/s Matrika Commercials LLP and the genuineness of the alleged share capital receipt of Rs. 90.42 crores?
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.
Precedents Relied Upon
6 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
M/s Krian Cinema Banquets Pvt Ltd vs The ACIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai
Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2016-17AllowedM/s. Sapphire Fintech Private Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Mumbai benchAY 2012-13Partly AllowedM/s. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Business Function Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata
Kolkata 'D' Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2012-13AllowedDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. PHPL Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Kolkata ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Partly AllowedACIT, Circle 23 (2) vs. Signature Global (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17DismissedDCIT vs. PCJ Finvest Private Limited