← 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

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

accepted the facts of paid up value of shares to the extent of Rs. 1.5 crores and has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act share premium (1,50,00,000 x15) received Rs. 2.25 crores. On appeal, the CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences u/rule

Royal Rich Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 1316/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Royal Rich Developers Dcit Cc- 4(4), Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, बनाम/ Building, Nariman Point, Mahavir General Store, 154, Vs. Mumbai. Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr2578J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2839/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit Cc- 4(4), Royal Rich Developers Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, बनाम/ C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mahavir General Store, Vs. 154, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave & TanzilFor Respondent: Shri Dharmveer Yadav, Ld
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowed in AY 2007-08 on account of salary expenses. 4. Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on the ground that major addition u/s 68 has been confirmed by the Tribunal and even for the salary expenses, he rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the penalty. However