← 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

DCIT-27(3), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai vs. Vimal Arvind Kapasi, Ghatkopar-West

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 3569/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblethe Deputy Commissioner Vimal Arvind Kapasi, Vs. Of Income Tax-27(3), 4, Swati Apt., Hansoli Lane, Mumbai. Cama Lane, Ghatkopar-West, Mumbai-400086. [Pan :Adqpk1014 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Shah, Ar Respondent By: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts AMD circumstances of the case, the Addl./JL.CIT (A) has erred in holding that the AO has worked out the amount of addition u/s 68 as the sum of purchase price AMD the commission expense incurred by the assessee, AMD in not appreciating the fact that the addition amount ... deliberated upon the amount declared by the assessee under IDS 2016 AMD has duly given the benefit of the same while calculating the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 4. On the facts AMD circumstances of the case, the Addl./Jt.CIT (A) has erred in inferring that the addition made

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (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 paid ... relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court and Jurisdictional Tribunal under which their Jurisdiction. These Judgments are regarding additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of either Share Capital or Unsecured loans. Nevertheless, the ratio equally applies to the facts of assessee's case

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2190/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
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 ... Jurisdictional High Court and Jurisdictional Tribunal as under, which create binding precedents for all the authorities under their Jurisdiction. These Judgments are regarding additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of either Share Capital or Unsecured loans. Nevertheless, the ratio equally applies to the facts of assessee's case

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2189/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

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

ITA 2106/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2105/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 3 (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

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3355/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

revenue 7 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. authorities. From the records we noticed that assessment for A.Y 2013-14 was carried on by making addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained cash credit based on withdrawal and deposit made by the assessee in his bank account as well as the bank ... years on the basis of findings in previous year. With regard to the Ground No. 2 for A.Y 2013-14, the AO made addition u/s 68 despite documents being produced and reconciliation given. As per assessee the documents in question could not be produced and submitted before

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3193/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

revenue 7 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. authorities. From the records we noticed that assessment for A.Y 2013-14 was carried on by making addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained cash credit based on withdrawal and deposit made by the assessee in his bank account as well as the bank ... years on the basis of findings in previous year. With regard to the Ground No. 2 for A.Y 2013-14, the AO made addition u/s 68 despite documents being produced and reconciliation given. As per assessee the documents in question could not be produced and submitted before

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3192/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

revenue 7 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. authorities. From the records we noticed that assessment for A.Y 2013-14 was carried on by making addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained cash credit based on withdrawal and deposit made by the assessee in his bank account as well as the bank ... years on the basis of findings in previous year. With regard to the Ground No. 2 for A.Y 2013-14, the AO made addition u/s 68 despite documents being produced and reconciliation given. As per assessee the documents in question could not be produced and submitted before

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3191/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

revenue 7 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. authorities. From the records we noticed that assessment for A.Y 2013-14 was carried on by making addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained cash credit based on withdrawal and deposit made by the assessee in his bank account as well as the bank ... years on the basis of findings in previous year. With regard to the Ground No. 2 for A.Y 2013-14, the AO made addition u/s 68 despite documents being produced and reconciliation given. As per assessee the documents in question could not be produced and submitted before

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 2489/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

revenue 7 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. authorities. From the records we noticed that assessment for A.Y 2013-14 was carried on by making addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained cash credit based on withdrawal and deposit made by the assessee in his bank account as well as the bank ... years on the basis of findings in previous year. With regard to the Ground No. 2 for A.Y 2013-14, the AO made addition u/s 68 despite documents being produced and reconciliation given. As per assessee the documents in question could not be produced and submitted before

Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 250

revenue 7 Rajkishore Maniyar, Mumbai. authorities. From the records we noticed that assessment for A.Y 2013-14 was carried on by making addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained cash credit based on withdrawal and deposit made by the assessee in his bank account as well as the bank ... years on the basis of findings in previous year. With regard to the Ground No. 2 for A.Y 2013-14, the AO made addition u/s 68 despite documents being produced and reconciliation given. As per assessee the documents in question could not be produced and submitted before

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

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

claims to be not genuine and considered these scrip to be penny stock and 2 Udita Gupta vs. ACIT disallowed the claim making addition u/s 68 of the Act which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A) with following conclusions: “I find that the appellant had made investment in shares

K B S Enteprises, Jaipur vs. ACIT(Circle-6), Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed while upholding the addition/disallowance made by holding that net profit @

ITA 725/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Filing Of This Appeal, Was In Appeal Before Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 16.12.2019, Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18, Whereby Following Disallowances & Additions Were Made, In Computing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 3,23,55,510/-:- “6. Subject To Above Remarks, Total Income Of The Assessee Is Computed As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 68

assessee is in appeal while challenging the first mentioned disallowance to the tune of Rs. 52,46,981/- and the addition u/s 68 of the Act even though restricted by Learned CIT(A). 5. Arguments heard. File perused. 6. The assessee firm is engaged in contractor ship business ... before depreciation, remuneration and interest to partners, has been held to be the “fair net profit rate”. 9 K B S Enterprises, Jaipur. Addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus claim of unsecured loans:- 21. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that during assessment proceedings

DCIT, Cental Circle 2(3), Kolkata vs. Lumino Industries Limited, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Lumino Industries Ltd……………………............…..….…..….......……...…..…..Respondent Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] C.O No.57/Kol/2025 (In I.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lumino Industries Ltd.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata ……………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objections D By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Ay 2014-15. 02. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 7 Days By The Revenue, For Which, Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed By The Revenue, We Are Of The View That The

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

2100/Kol/2018) on similar facts and circumstances held that the ld. AO’s reliance on the statement of Shri Raj Kothari to justify the addition u/s 68 of the Act was unsustainable. 11. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jaipur vs. Kiran Infra Ispat Limited, Jaipur

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

Company is on account of sale proceed which is already included in the Profit & Loss account, there is no case for making any addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act. The ld. CIT(A) has supported his view by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Thus, when the A.O. has directly gone on to pass the Assessment Orders u/s 143(3) of the Act to make the impugned additions u/s 68, the same is in direct violation of the procedure of enquiry prescribed in the Statute that inherently encompasses the Principles of Natural Justice ... prove the source of the cash deposited of Rs. 76,50,000/- in his bank account with HDFC Bank on 14.11.2016, therefore addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained and unverified cash deposits made to the income of the assessee for taxation. Submissions: Addition so made out of contradictory findings

Delhi vs. Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5583/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-29, I-45, Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. Vs. Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059. Pan:Aajcs4890G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Batra, Adv. & Shri Kailash Khemani, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 In Appeal No. 08/10437/2019-20 Dated 25.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.10.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,35,580/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.98,00,000/- In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) In Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings, Details Have Been Asked For Time To Time & The Assessing Officer Has Issued Summons To The Parties To Whom Sales Stated To Have Been Made In Cash. Since, Most Of The Parties Has Not Responded To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer, He Was Of The Opinion That Cash Deposited During

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

appeal taken by the Revenue, the Revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) in the deleting the same as considering it as addition u/s 68 of the Act which was not invoked by the Assessing Officer, thus, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue to this extent

Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 647/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

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

statement of assessee's director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee company as undisclosed income and made addition u/s 68, since said statement was retracted during search operation and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence or investigation brought on record

Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

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

statement of assessee's director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee company as undisclosed income and made addition u/s 68, since said statement was retracted during search operation and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence or investigation brought on record