“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

ACIT, CC-3(4), Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2679/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

made from 01.04.2014 till the date of search. 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 was included in income by the respective lender companies

ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2655/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

ACIT, Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2644/KOL/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2643/KOL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

Goodluck Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1771/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Goodluck Metal Corporation, Assessing Officer Circle 19(1), 98, Khetwadi Main Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaafg 1441 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Adv

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153A

subsequent year and once, the loans have been returned back no subsequent year and once, the loans have been returned back no addition u/s 68 of the Act is justified. The Ld. counsel referred to addition u/s 68 of the Act is justified. The Ld. counsel referred to addition u/s ... direct he AO to delete the additions of Rs. 1,29,04,231/ have decided the issue of addition d the issue of addition u/s 68 in favour of the assessee, in favour of the assessee, the addition as sustained by the ld CIT(A) u/s

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1596/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

under:- 1. "On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 4,30,00,000/-with-respect to the unsecured loans received by it, without appreciating that the retraction of statement is only an afterthought ... admitted that the company was a paper company. The main issue involved in the present appeal is in relation to addition u/s. 68 of Rs.4,30,00,000/- in respect of unsecured loan received by the appellant from SPL during the year under consideration. The assessee claimed that no addition

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1595/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Rajesh Kumar Govil, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3319/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Rajesh Kumar Govil, 201-202, 2Nd Floor, Ghaziabad Near Purani Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Up (Pan: Aaopg9122H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr . Respondent By : Sh. Amit Rai, Ca

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Rai, CA

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69

cannot be treated as bogus / non-genuine / accommodation entries in a general manner, without specific enquiry or evidence in this regard. Accordingly, the addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act of Rs.25,62,463/- and additions u/s 69C of Rs. 76,873/- made by the AO are directed

ITO, Ward-30(4), New Delhi vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4400/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Ward-30(4), New Delhi. Mehta, E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector-31, Nh-8, Gurgoan, Haryana-122002. Pan: Akspm 6239M Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 180/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 4400/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Vs Income Tax Officer, E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector- Ward-30(4), New Delhi. 31, Nh-8, Gurgoan, Haryana-122002. Pan: Akspm 6239M Cross Objector Respondent Assessee Represented By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Pawan Garg, Adv.; & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Department Represented By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that no case of any intervention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) qua deletion of addition u/s 68 of Rs.1,71,95,000/-, and Rs.41,50,000/-, contested by the Revenue through ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 , is made

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

erred in sustaining the orders passed by the Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that the no addition u/s 68 can be made merely relying upon the bank statements, which was never books of accounts of the assessee.” 4. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee filed a written submission

M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

submitted his written submission, which are being reproduced here under :- 5 M/s Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur “ 1. The AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Act. This section provides that if any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, then the assessee has to prove ... loan from two parties. AO treated same to be sham for reason that creditworthiness of loan givers was not established and accordingly made addition u/s 68. It was held that assessee had furnished details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income tax returns, balance sheet, etc. of loan

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

proving the genuineness of the parties with identity and sources as well as creditworthiness thereof. Accordingly, the appellant had contended that no addition u/s 68 was warranted in the instant case of the appellant. I have perused and examined the supporting documents furnished by the appellant in respect ... Therefore, the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscription by Abhi Commercial & Finvest Pvt. Ltd. is proved and thus doesn't warrant any addition u/s 68. 5.3.2.3.2. In respect of the company investor Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd., the appellant had submitted the details of PAN, Address, Memorandum and Articles

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are

ITA 1175/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Rs.1,500 | | | of the IT Act | | | 7 | Assessed Income for Order passed u/s 153A/143(3) | Rs 15,01,000 | | | of the Act | | | 8 | Addition u/s 68 of the IT Act for the Share | Rs.15,00,000 | | | application money received | | 6.1 In the present case, the amount received from share subscription

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1173/KOL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1173 & 1175/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kol- 700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2013-14 Against Separate Orders Dated 21.02.2025 & 25.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Rs.1,500 of the IT Act 7 Assessed Income for Order passed u/s 153A/143(3) Rs 15,01,000 of the Act 8 Addition u/s 68 of the IT Act for the Share Rs. 15,00,000 application money received Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd 6.1 In the present case

Yadav Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bathinda

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

formed a part of the gross sales turnover (in audited trading accounts) and has already been subjected to taxation and any further addition u/s 68 of the said amount will result in double taxation. 25. As such considering all aspects of the matter, both on the legal aspect as well

J.K.V. Stonex, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 68

deserves to be quashed. 2. Under thefacts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 to the extent of Rs.46,79,121/- out of total addition of Rs.1,40,89,951/- by holding that the assessee could not prove the credit ... deserves to be quashed. Ground 2 Under the facts & circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 to the extent of Rs. 46,79,121/-, out of total addition of Rs. 1,40,89,951/-, by holding that the asessee could

Sh. Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal 171, Model Town Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Jatin Abbi the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

Paper Book which reads as under: SL PARTICULARS NO. JUDGEMENTS ON THE ISSUE THAT IF ONUS HAS BEEN PROVED BY ASSESEE THEN ADDITION U/S 68 CANNOT BE MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT 1. Judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar as reported in [2021] 130 taxmann.com

Dodhia Filaments Private Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 795/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the assessee’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 of share application money of Rs 1,50,00,000/-: a) by holding share application money as accommodation entries, without there being any evidence of cash

Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4802/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

incurred in share trading was treated as speculation loss and which was not allowed to set off with any other income and addition u/s 68 of the Act related to acceptance of share capital amount to Rs.9.27 crores. The assessee filed appeal before the 1st appellate authority and the assessment ... order was confirmed. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT-Mumbai Bench. The ITAT upheld the addition u/s 68 of the Act amount to Rs.9.27 crores only and rest addition was deleted. The Ld.AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) / 274 of the Act and income