← All Phrases

“addition u/s 68”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,598 judgments

The decision most relied on for addition u/s 68 is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), cited in 854 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on addition u/s 68

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. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

1) CIT v. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (
151 ITR 150 · 1985 · High Court
79
citing judgments

The assessee's burden under Section 68 to prove cash credits is discharged by establishing the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction; the assessee is not required to prove the creditor's source of funds or creditworthiness, as the department can use Section 131 for further investigation.

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT
206 ITR 718 · 1994 · High Court
77
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

Hastimal v. CIT
49 ITR 273 · 1963 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra
301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court
47
citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

Judgments citing addition u/s 68

Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………….……….….……….……Appellant 15, Dr. U N Brahmachari Street, Kol – 700017.. [Pan: Aabcb1093Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1), Kolkata ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2014-2015 Declaring An Income Of Rs.88,37,270/- & Was Assessed To An Income Of Rs.4,55,31,490/-. The Assessing Officer Passed Assessment Order In The Case Of The Assessee By Making The Following Additions /Disallowances:

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

Limited of Rs.1,85,00,000/- (ii) Ambala Traffin Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.15,00,000 and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s 68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,85,00,000/- in respect of unsecured loan taken from Kailash Auto Finance Limited

Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi vs. Savita Aggarwal, Delhi

ITA 800/DEL/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaincome Tax Officer Vs. Savita Aggarwal Ward-44(1) A-147, Shankar Garden, Room No. 1804, 18Th Vikaspuri Floor, E-2 Block, Delhi – 110018 Spm Civic Centre Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpa3523A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh K.Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 68

what comes up on hearing is that assessee’s returned was subjected to reassessment after a survey proceeding and AO made an addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged bogus entries and the income of the assessee was recomputed. Assessee preferred an appeal where succeeded for which

Tarmo It Services, Faridabad vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4469/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4469/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Tarmo It Services, Acit, C/O Sandeep Goel, Advocate, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Aahft9287F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 68

NFAC, Delhi. In this case,the Ld. AO vide his order dated 18.11.2019, is seen to have made additions u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash introduced as capital by two partners. Thus, Rs.12,00,000/- introduced by Mr. Tarun Chauhan and Rs.40,00,000/- by Mr. Mohit ... years. It was also pointed out that since the cash credit was seen to be in the hands of the firm hence any addition u/s 68 of the Act would be made in the hands of the firm and not in the hands of the so-called depositors

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

ITA 2982/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2966/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 2813/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 2812/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 2761/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

liable to be set aside.” 5. The thrust of ld. Counsel appearing for assessee was on the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was contended that all the compliances of section 13A of the Act were made and there was mere delay in some

Uma Strips Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2507/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

towards family members, merely because their replies are from similar email ids and from same address, doesn’t permit the AO to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. We find that given the assessee’s explanation, corroborated by the parties themselves with evidences, the addition of trade payable u/s

Seema Decolight, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1723/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Sethil Kumarseema Decolight Income Tax Officer, 53, Nr. Balahanuman, Vs. Ward 1(1)(3), Gandhi Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380001. [Pan: Aaufs2781 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Pathak, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R. Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Asst. Year: 2017-18 corroborative material, cannot be resorted to. This ground of appeal of the assessee is thus allowed. 11. Regarding addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan, it is an admitted fact that the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received through

Swipe Telecom LLP, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 5, Pune

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

ITA 1911/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1911/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Swipe Telecom Llp, Dcit, Circle-5, Pune Unit No. T-3/T-4, Metro Pole Building, Next To Inox Vs. Theatre, Bundgarden Road, Camp, Pune-411001 Maharashtra Pan-Aarcs7202C अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Jain Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18-12-2025 आदीश /Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.07.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 28.03.2016 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 5. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made for unexplained unsecured loans of Rs. 46,00,000/- He submitted that most of the details were filed

Riddhiman Realcon LLP (Formerly Riddhiman Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1735/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

transferred to ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata, who framed the assessment assessing the income at ₹1,11,77,957/- by making an addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of share capital/ share premium. 2. 2. The Id. AR vehemently submitted before

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farukhabad vs. Assessing Officer, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 76/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

reasons recorded and in the proforma seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act. 13. In any event, no addition u/s 68 of the Act could be made in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as there was no fresh receipt of unsecured loans at all during the year

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle-4(2)(1) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 54/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

reasons recorded and in the proforma seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act. 13. In any event, no addition u/s 68 of the Act could be made in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as there was no fresh receipt of unsecured loans at all during the year

Om Prakash Banwani, Gwalior vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Gwalior

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

ITA 206/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Parkash Banwani, Vs. Acit, Harkota Seer, Girwi Circle-1, Gwalior Naka, Ab Road, Gwalior, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abdpv8742J Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

prove 3 ingredients of Section 68 of the Act in respect of loans Om Parkash Banwani received which was subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. This goes to the root of the matter and hence we proceed to address the same first. 4. We have heard

Nimblelogik Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2263/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23 Nimblelogik Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle – 2, Pune F No.A6/103, Meghapolis, Vs. Sunway Ph-Iii, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aahcn2080P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin P Kumar Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,50,50,674/- wherein he made the following additions: (i) Addition u/s 68 being share premium received on the ground that the assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of shareholders along with necessary supporting evidences - Rs.1

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2018 wherein the total income stood assessed at INR 1,12,94,400/- by making addition u/s 68 of the Act towards unsecured loans of INR 1,05,00,000/- received during the year under appeal. Besides disallowance ... section 68 – Held, yes [Paras 11.4, 11.5 and 14.4] [In favour of assessee]” ………… 27. Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability