https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775034 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two grounds. First, the tribunal set aside the assessment as the notice u/s 148 was not served on the firm's partners immediately before dissolution, violating Section 283(2) requirements for dissolved entities. Second, the tribunal found that additions u/s 68 for unexplained cash credits were impermissible. The assessee firm's trades were executed through stock exchanges via demat accounts, properly recorded in audited books, with no brokerage expenses claimed. The AO failed to establish that amounts were credited as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The business losses represented fund outflow/depletion rather than credit transactions, making Section 68 additions inappropriate. Relying on Marut Nandan & Co precedent, the tribunal held that Section 68 additions were not permissible for both assessment years and allowed the assessee's appeal. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 10:11:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775034 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two grounds. First, the tribunal set aside the assessment as the notice u/s 148 was not served on the firm's partners immediately before dissolution, violating Section 283(2) requirements for dissolved entities. Second, the tribunal found that additions u/s 68 for unexplained cash credits were impermissible. The assessee firm's trades were executed through stock exchanges via demat accounts, properly recorded in audited books, with no brokerage expenses claimed. The AO failed to establish that amounts were credited as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The business losses represented fund outflow/depletion rather than credit transactions, making Section 68 additions inappropriate. Relying on Marut Nandan & Co precedent, the tribunal held that Section 68 additions were not permissible for both assessment years and allowed the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775034