← All Phrases

“addition under section 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,640 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition under section 68 is CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), cited in 1,579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition under section 68

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

Judgments citing addition under section 68

Sollfege Electronics Private Limited (Presently Known As Sollfege Electronics Limited), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1012/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1012/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Sollfege Electronics Private Vs Ito Ward 8(2), Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, (Presently Known As Sollfege Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Electronics Limited) 3, Pretoria Street, 2Nd Floor, Chandrakunj Building, Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Pan No. :Aaecd4463B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocates रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2025, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Pressed The Grounds No.8, 9, 10 & 11, Which Are Raised By The Assessee To Challenge The Confirmation Of Addition By The Ld. Cit(A) Of Rs.60.00 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer U/S.68 Of The Act As Unexplained Cash Credit. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Electronics Audio, Video Etc. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act On 06.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.95,23,889/-. The Notice U/S.148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

sham in the sense that the creditworthiness etc. of the giver of the loan were not established. Accordingly, the assessing officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. 3.1 While the assessing officer dealt with unexplained cash credit from the M/s. Satya Retail Private Limited and from