← 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

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6627/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a 49 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has discharged initial onus cast upon him. 31. The learned Counsel of assessee further submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6626/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a 49 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has discharged initial onus cast upon him. 31. The learned Counsel of assessee further submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6625/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a 49 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has discharged initial onus cast upon him. 31. The learned Counsel of assessee further submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6624/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a 49 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has discharged initial onus cast upon him. 31. The learned Counsel of assessee further submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6623/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a 49 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has discharged initial onus cast upon him. 31. The learned Counsel of assessee further submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6622/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a 49 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has discharged initial onus cast upon him. 31. The learned Counsel of assessee further submitted that

Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Anantpur Kalpana, Vs. Ito, 1/1/1, Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Ward – 1, Hosakeri, Building Bamboo Bazar, Koppal. Gangavathi – 583 227, Karnataka. Pan : Clepk 8005 L Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 16.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is Proprietrix Of A Business In The Name & Style Of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. The Business Consists Of Dealing In Beedi, Tea Powder & Pan Masala. For Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,49,520/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That There Were Several Cash Deposits In The Two Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. Out Of The Aforesaid Cash Deposits, The Ao Culled Out, The Deposits That Was Made Of Bank Notes That Were Declared As Not Legal Tender Owing To Demonetization Of Currency. The Details Of The Total Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In Her Bank Account & The Cash Deposits Of Cash/Currency Notes That Were Declared As Not Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 115BSection 68

well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ... held that when Assessee Page 8 of 8 already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case

Vps Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 127/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

that sole reason for addition has been non production of director of companies which is held to be not the valid reason for addition u/s 68. • That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Shri Ravinder Arya, who was Managing Director of the of the Company

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 1397/Del/2016 [A.Y 2006-07]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s 68 made on account of unexplained share capital received from 24 persons amounting to Rs. 1,97,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that neither

Tirlok Singh, Kurukshetra vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3995/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi& Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3995/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sh. Tirlok Singh, बनाम The Dcit(International S/O Sh. Surjit Singh, Taxation), Circle, Village Kalsa, Tehsil Pehowa, Gurgaon Kurukshetra "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cbzps6654J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Though Video Conferencing िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2021 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”,DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL

Anita Khatri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 98/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

were related to sale proceeds of the cloth business, this argument is not acceptable. 4.3.5 The appellant has also raised an objection that addition u/s 68 was not feasible since, the credits were not in the assessee's books of account but her bank account. It is therefore held that

Anita Khatri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 97/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

were related to sale proceeds of the cloth business, this argument is not acceptable. 4.3.5 The appellant has also raised an objection that addition u/s 68 was not feasible since, the credits were not in the assessee's books of account but her bank account. It is therefore held that

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2399/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 68Section 69

Delhi after statutory approval u/s 253(2) of I.T. Act from PCIT against the order of Ld. CIT(A) also stated facts about addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act which are patently wrong and any approval based on such facts is bad in law. Since, the appeal filed ... Revenue is not maintainable on this score. 25.1. The Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that after admitting in the remand report that the addition u/s 68 is incorrectly shown at 14,75,00,000/- in place of 6,75,00,000/- and needs rectification still the Revenue has not corrected

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Macro Leafin Private Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 5679/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 68

deposit in the bank is unexplained. So, there being revenue receipt already credited into profit & loss account or reduced from investment, no addition u/s 68 of the Act on protective basis in the hands of the assessee can be made. So, ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the protective addition

ITO, Ward-17(1), New Delhi vs. Momentum Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5803/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 5803/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Momentum Technologies P. Ito Ward-17(1) Ltd. B-21, Moti Nagar, Room No. 323A, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Aaccm6467C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 68

unquestioned; the turnover of the assessee other than the undisclosed bank account also remained undisturbed. Furthermore, the learned CIT – A has upheld the addition u/s 68 of the act itself on the peak balance in the bank account of the assessee. In view of the above facts

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gys Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1210/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 31(1)Section 68

read as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium ignoring the finding of AO in respect of creditworthiness of the share holders. 2. Whether

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act to the satisfaction of the AO, otherwise he shall be free to proceed against the assessee company and make addition u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 8.3 Now, in the light of above, it has to be seen that to what extent, appellant

Geeta Bhasin, Noida vs. JCIT, Range- 32, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4600/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Geeta Bhasin, Vs. Jcit, C/O. Sandeep Sapra, Adv, C-763, Range-32, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Acdpb6005D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 2Section 68Section 69A

assessee at ₹ 73,575,810. 3. The learned assessing officer made the following addition/disallowance to the total income of the assessee:- a. addition u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act of Rs. 178 lakhs with respect to the contract for construction income of ₹ 62 lakhs, amount received for purchase ... compound wall for Rs 237,95,918/–. Therefore, it was contended that despite above facts, the learned assessing officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the act. The learned CIT – A dealt with issue in paragraph number 5.6.3 holding that it is not disputed that the directors

Smt. Geeta Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for these two years also

ITA 532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issue in challenge is to action of the ld AO u/s 147 of the act based on assessment for Ay 2011-12 and addition u/s 68 of the act with respect to one party. 02. We first take up the appeal for AY 2007-08 for the reason that there

Smt. Geeta Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for these two years also

ITA 531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issue in challenge is to action of the ld AO u/s 147 of the act based on assessment for Ay 2011-12 and addition u/s 68 of the act with respect to one party. 02. We first take up the appeal for AY 2007-08 for the reason that there