“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

Ajay Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1415/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ajay Kumar, Vs Ito, 399, M/S. Ajay Enterprises, Ward-1, Karnal G.T.Road, New Anaj Mandi, Karnal, Haryana-132001. Pan-Agipk1566F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

four [04] parties and payment was received through RTGS of the sales made. 10. Ld.AR also drew our attention to the fact that addition u/s 68 of the Act was made towards the purchase of goods where the credits of goods which were duly recorded in the stock register

Kanhaiya Krushi Kendra, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward -1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 427/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: ShriAbhishek Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

intio bad in the eyes of law and needs to be set aside. 3) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition u/s 68 of Rs.24,56,000/- on account of undisclosed cash credits is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs

National Law Institute University, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 423/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

last the assessee could not furnish details and offered the same for taxation in current year. This led the AO to make impugned addition u/s 68. At present, the assessee is claiming that the impugned addition could not have been made by AO in current year and must be excluded

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

WARD 3(1), JAIPUR of credit, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient. Addition u/s 68 was justified. Similar views have been taken in the following cases: K.C.N. Chandrasekhar Vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66 TTJ 355 CIT Vs United Commercial & Industrial ... false, fabricated or fictitious. ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A) that AO proceeded only on presumptions and was not justified in making additions u/s 68 of the Act. Held, findings of AO were based on presumptions rather than on cogent proof. CIT(A) and ITAT found that

Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-15(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of

ITA 4623/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla,AR (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Before the ld.CIT(A),it was submitted by the assessee that it was merely an entry provider and earned commission income therefrom. No addition u/s 68 of the Act was justified. It was also contented that the AO had worked out commission income at the rate of 5% of aggregate ... rate of tax after the amendment to Section 115BBE was 77.25% [60% + 25% Surcharge + 3% Cess], as against 30%. 13.1 When an addition u/s 68 of the Act is made, taxing it at the rate prescribed u/s 155BBE of the Act was a natural corollary. It is provided

Inner Chef Private Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2184/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

declared by the assessee company as Income. 2. Whether the ld. A.O has erred in law and facts of the case in making addition u/s 68 of Rs. 14,85,07,750/- and charging tax u/s 115BBE (as per para 4 of assessment order) 3. Whether ... hence the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction under proviso to section 251(1)(a) in referring the issue of addition u/s 68 back to the AO for verification. We also find that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In such a factual

Dinesh Prasad, Gaya vs. ITO, Wrd- 3 (1), Gaya

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

ITA 352/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 145Section 250Section 68

NFAC has erred in ignoring the legacy history of the appellant and the subsequent year returns while confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in affirming the invocation of section 68 by the A.O. which in the present case ... applicable and thus, the very sustenance on addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs.53,52,000/- is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in affirming the invocation of section 115BBE in respect of addition of Rs.53,52,000/- despite

Kabir Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5342/MUM/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.5342/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Kabirmulchandani V/S. Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, बनाम C/O R.C Kapoor & Co, Mumbai Chartered Accountants Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, Mumbai D-36, South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi 110049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm1224B Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/"ितवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the passbook as the books of account of the assessee and confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of any credit appearing therein. 5) That the sum of Rs 18,75,000/- were received from United Credit Securities ... account. As the assessee did not furnish details regarding the swore of this entry, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained and made addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 7.1. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that this amount was received from the stock broker M/s. United Credit Securities

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

operandi adopted by Bhanwarlal Jain Group of cases to provide bogus accommodation entries of loan. The main reason of the AO for making addition u/s 68 was on the basis of information provided by the Investigation Wing of the Department. No independent enquiry has been conducted

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vng Impex P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 5917/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

aggregating to Rs.25,66,00,806/-. The AO has accepted the submissions of the assessee on the 7th party and proceeded to add addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.21,66,00,806/-. With regard to above parties, the advance received from Birbal Advisory Private Limited

Anurag Yadav, Kannauj vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 78/ALLD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Anurag Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer, Mahmoodpur Keerat, Nigoh Ward-4(2)(3) Khas, Chhibramau Kannauj, Income Tax Office, Kannauj-209721. Kannauj, Kannauj- 209721. Pan:Adbpy5023B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: (Application) Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

carried out from past several years. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts to make the impugned addition u/s 68 without rejecting the audited books of accounts. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making impugned addition ... same, thus, leading to dual taxation. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act, without recording the opinion why the explanation as offered by the appellant was unsatisfactory. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Smt. Suman Choudhary, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Case was selected for Limited scrutiny on the sole issue of “interest income mismatch”, whereas assessment u.s 143(3) was completed after making addition u/s 68 on account of Unexplained Cash Credit, that too without converting it into Complete Scrutiny in accordance with CBDT Circular. Accordingly, assessment order passed

Sri.Girish Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

assessee at Rs.31,79,204. 5. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). With respect to the addition u/s. 68 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that as assessee has deposited SBNs into his bank account, there is no infirmity ... deposited in the bank account. The money is deposited from the books of the assessee. Thus, ld AO is directed to delete the addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 31,10,500/-. Accordingly ground Nos. 2 &7 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Income Tax Offier-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Heena Ashok Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

ITA 2248/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Court that while making the addition to my Income only the commission Income that has to be added at reasonable rate, and no addition u/s 68 for the entire amount can be done in my case. The same thing was upheld by ITAT and The Mumbai High Court also

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Heena Ashok Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

ITA 2232/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi vs. Silver City, New Delhi

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

ITA 1709/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Central Circle 7, Vs. Silver City, 28-12-2813, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Gali No.20, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan :Acrfs7187F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Order : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 21.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,04,40,760/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued & Served Through Sped Post As Well As Through

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

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

made by him in the Profit & Loss accounts and the Assessing Officer did not reduce this amount from the sales while making an addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act. Presumption that the amount deposited in bank in SBNs is not sale proceed should have resulted in reduction of sales ... figure and also increase in closing stock, while computing business income. Any addition u/s 68 without corresponding reduction in the sales figure and increase in closing stock figure would result into a double addition which can never be considered as appropriate. Therefore, this is a case where books of accounts

Adhunik Technology Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 8848/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

stage of the transaction by any Authority at any time. 9. We find substance in the contention of ld. Counsel that an addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made only for an unexplained entry by way of a cash credit. A cash credit is a credit ... purchase were bogus. Thus, without showing the impugned credit in the books to be cash credits, it is not justified to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act. If the case is only of failure to establish the existence of sundry creditors at the given address then being case

Adhunik Technology Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 8847/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

Bansi Lal Kumhar, Udaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

cash deposit in his bank account, the AO had rejected the source of rental income of the assessee and agricultural income and made addition u/s 68 on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the year as unexplained money which has been confirmed by the Ld. NFAC/CIT

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

that the assessment in the case of above named assosseo was abo completed u's 143(3) for the A.Y. 2013-14 and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made in the total xome of the assessee on account of unexplained credits in books of accounts on the same