“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

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

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

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

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

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

large-scale cash deposits. Further regarding the ground of 115BBE and Penalty section 271AAc of the I.T.Act the decision is as under.- Justified Addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE:  Section 115BBE applies to additions made u/s unexplained income at a higher rate (60% + ge/cess) 68, taxing  The cash deposits being unsubstantiated ... 3746/DEL/2019 wherein Hon'ble Delhi tribunal held that merely difference in ratio of cash sales cannot be made sole ground for making an addition u/s 68 of the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal further held that the assessee had regular cash sales and deposit of cash in bank account

Asis Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 588/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

from which such profit derives, which the authorities below completely disregarded and thus came to an erroneous and unjustified conclusion in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. This is unjust. Thus, your Appellant states that if your Honour deem fit and proper then the case may kindly

Jagdish Chand Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 67(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2417/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Jagdish Chand Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Pramod Shukla, Ward-67(2), 3748, First Floor, Kucha Delhi. Parmanand, Daryaganj. Pan: Aanpv4931G

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 54Section 68

Madras High Courts.” 7. Thus the denial of deduction under section 54 of the Act cannot be sustained. 8. Coming to the addition u/s 68 of the Act, for deposits in bank account, ld. AR has submitted that the Appellant did not carry on any business during the relevant assessment

Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sahil Jain, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

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 ... here in above, I am of the view that the conditions to invoke provisions u/s. 68 are not prevailing in this case. The addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 5,89,13,065/- is unjustified, therefore, cannot be sustained as per provisions of IT Act, 1961. Upon observing that the appellant

Udita Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaudita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 29, 43/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. (Pan : Advpa9481B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-30, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Case Of The Assessee Was Picked Up For Limited Scrutiny & During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee’S Claim Of Earning Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.57,11,085/- & Rs.46,95,755/- From Sale Of Shares Of M/S Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. Totaling Rs.1,04,06,840/- Were Examined. The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

Officer 2 has found the claims to be not genuine and considered these scrip to be penny stock and disallowed the claim making addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

case of ‘Prashant Pratap Ahir vs ACIT ITA No. 1954/PUN/2018’ the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had held that “addition u/s 68 of the IT Act merely on the basis of presumption or suspicion without any corroborated evidence is unsustainable.” b) Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta

Excel Financial Consultants (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

ITA 990/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

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

legal obligation on the assessee to produce directors of the applicant companies and the same cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 before the AO as has been held by the the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajkumar Agarwala and ITAT in the case

Nikshep Infra Projects, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1602/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 68

amounting to Rs. 17,01,36,763/- being the amount payable to sub-contractors, however, in the Assessment order, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. We found that the AO right from the outset was mystified & make contradictory observations while passing the assessment

Income Tax Officer 17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Amritlal Nayak, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 3484/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Hakani, AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 68

required. On Merits-Addition of Rs. 15,63,645/- is Bad in Law: 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of 15,63,645/-on sales of Rs. 6,18,67,249/- to M/s Jash Dealmark Limited, Rs.93,42,692/-to M/s Germanium Trading ... proof of payment through banking channels. The GST Department had accepted these transactions, and the books of accounts were not rejected. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 of ₹ 15,63,645/- deserves to be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said sales were already offered

Ankit Gupta, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 1(1), Allahabad

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

ITA 133/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 68

total income of the assessee at Rs.2,49,13,482/- by making addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- on account of unexplained capital addition u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, Kota

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

ITA 717/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 68Section 69B

order).. As per section 68 the sum should be credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year. Hence, the addition u/s 68 can be made in the year when the sum is credited for the first time. Here the credit was found to be prior ... accounts of the assessee did not pertain to the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act and no fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal endorsing the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal).’’ The ITAT, Chennai Bench

Simply Money Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessing Authority Ward 23(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3501/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sohail, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

case. We therefore, in order to adhere to the principle of natural justice, consider it fit to remand the matter of addition u/s 68 back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to afford an adequate opportunity to the assessee

DCIT, I.T.O. Delhi vs. Rathi Steel and Power Limited, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2720/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2720/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Chauhan Market, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Madanpur Khadar, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Near Shopping Complex, New Delhi Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76 Pan: Aaacr1435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 68

proper. When the assessee had regular cash sale and deposit of cash in bank accounts and if nothing incriminating is found contrary then addition u/s 68 of such cash sale would tantamount to double taxation. In several recent judgements such as in the cases of DCIT vs M/s. Bhanu Infrabuild

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Communique Marketing Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 68

Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue preferred present appeal with following grounds: “(1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the addition u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- which is an unaccounted credit received through unsecured loans from its own entities. 2. Whether ... adding the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as the assessee's unexplained income. We confirm the addition and dismiss the ground." 6.2 An addition u/s 68 is permissible without rejecting books of account. When it is argued that once audited books of accounts are accepted as such no addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cirlce 1 Vadodraa, Vadodara vs. Narayan Jewellers, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1216/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) should have confirmed the addition u/s 69A of the I.T. Act 4. The appellant

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle

ITA 468/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

this regard and mere denial without any documentary evidence has no force in the eye of law. The assessee has challenged the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The addition was made due to the facts that the cash receipts remained unaccounted and not part of regular books of accounts

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Jaipur

ITA 467/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Jaipur

ITA 466/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Ritika Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4495/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

assessce be based but mere suspicion and CIT VS. H.S. Builders Ltd. 78 D (IIC) (2012) this case, order of CIT(A) deleting addition u/s 68 was upheld by Tribunal after finding that also the sessee had submitted income, balance sheets of computations count of creditors and evidence that

Ilayash, Khurja vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 2772/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

justified in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2, Validity of Addition u/s 68, 69 and 69A - That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in making an addition