← 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

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Devtech M2M Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 4Th Floor, Sava House, Opp. 1(1), Pune. New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aadcb4376Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Cit(A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By Learned Ao-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Thereby Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2,22,00,000 As Against Nil Returned Income. 2. Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Granted An Appropriate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant For Making Requisite

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and addition u/s 68 on the basis of alleged bank deposits were made to the income of the assessee. During the first appellate proceedings before