“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

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 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

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 696/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

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Siyaram City Cabs Ltd., Jaipur vs. Itd Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 572/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

treating the amount as bogus accommodation entries by paying cash out of unaccounted income of the assessee company and thus the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para

ACIT, Ncc-2, Madurai vs. Ganesan Anbuselvam, Thiruthangal

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3181/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

with business activity and there was no abnormal spike in sales during demonetization. Sales were substantiated with ledgers and bank statements. Hence, the addition u/s 68 was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). 8. Our findings on Addition of Rs.2,27,76,680/- u/s 69C: The AO had considered

Amarendra Financial Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

have been made on substantive basis. On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld. CIT(A) while challenging the quantum addition u/s 68 and 69A of the Act, we find that in form 35 as available in the paper book pages 127 to 131, these issues

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

Section 115BSection 68

basis on which the case was taken for scrutiny is factually incorrect evidenced on the order of the Ld. AO itself. 6 3. Addition u/s 68 of the Act • At the time of assessment proceedings as well as CIT(A) proceedings, assessee have duly explained the source of the cash ... Page no. 11 of the assessment order. 8 Since the cash deposits are explained, accounted for, audited and already taxed, the addition u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified and amounts to double taxation, which is impressible in law. 5. It is to be noted thatLd.CIT(A) has delete

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Shivom Trexim Private Limited, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2396/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 2396/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Shivom Trexim Private Ltd., Ward-1, Room No.203, Vs. Plot No.26, Sector-25, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-6, Huda Part-Ii, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aapcs8392H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

made by the AO under section 68 of the Act is required to be deleted and the AO is directed to delete the addition u/s 68. Accordingly, the appellant succeeds in these grounds.” 4. On careful perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observed that the identity

Surendra Kumar Arya, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2339/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

above bids, assessee has purchased the abovesaid property. The AO rejected the abovesaid submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee solely relying on the statement of Prashesh Arya. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

Surendra Kumar Arya, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2338/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

Soham Pulin Purohit, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1372/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesoham Pulin Purohit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/92, Rivera Heights, Ward-3(3)(5), Opp. Sharnam-10, Ahmedabad. C.G Road, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Gujarat. [Pan :Bxspp5288 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N Divatia, With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

recording the reasons as prescribed u/s 147 and after taking prior approval of the competent authority. The AO vide Order dtd. 10.05.2023 made Addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs. 5,44,75,025/- thereby determining the total Income

M/S Divya Construction Co, Bhadohi vs. DCIT Circle-3, Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 37/ALLD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

both on the facts and in law. I.T.A. No.37/Alld/2020 Assessment Year:2013-14 2 2. That in any view of the matter the addition u/s 68 made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis and the learned CIT(A) was wrong in considering the addition on substantive basis. 3. That

Dairy India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle - 7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1987/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

additions were made u/s 68 of the Act. He submitted that all the cash were already disclosed in the books of account making addition u/s 68 is uncalled for and also it amounts to double addition. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders ... cash sales of Rs.48.03 crores and made the cash deposit of Rs.47.45 crores. Therefore, there is absolutely not justified for making the abovesaid addition u/s 68 of the Act. Considering the above facts on record, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 10. In the result

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

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

ITA 914/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

filed by the creditors and also proved the capacity of creditors by showing that the amounts were received by ‘Account Payee Cheques’, the addition u/s 68 of the Act was not warranted. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the said Sadhani Brothers did not name the assessee as beneficiary

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

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

ITA 797/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

survey should be considered as earned from business activity. If the argument of the assessee are accepted then there will be no addition u/s 68, 69, 69A or 69C in case the assessee is engaged in some business activity. This is not found to be acceptable as per the provisions

Bharatbhai Raghavbhai Jograna, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 270ASection 69A

assessee obtained gold loan which was transferred by the assessee to his bank account. Accordingly, there was no occasion to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is in the business of selling milk and drew out attention

Rohtash Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5039/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5039/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Rohtash Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 66, New Pragatesheel Ward-62(1), Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aukps4324B Assessee By: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, Ca & Sh. Pawan Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078024419(1) Dated 30.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

preceding assessment year(s) only. I therefore, see merit in the assessee’s vehement contentions herein to delete the impugned cost of improvement addition u/s 68 in his hands. Ordered accordingly. ` 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/09/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

without any valid reason. 5. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant company without appreciating that the provisions of Section 68 of the Income ... completely ignoring the evidences filed in support of the above transactions. It is further prayed that the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition u/s 68 as unexplained case credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into

ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and 11

ITA 2692/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata.….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd ………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] C.O. 19/Kol/2025 (In Ita Nos.2692 /Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd.….……………. ….……….……….……Cross-Objector 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata...………………………...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

balance in respect of all such lender companies. It has already been held earlier that the action of the AO in making an addition u/s 68 towards fresh loans received during the year is unsustainable. The interest paid on such loans were included in income by the respective lender companies