“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

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Trade Payable in 1,49,349 Rs. 13 Addition on account Excess 9,01,000 9,37,897 Depreciation in Rs. 14 Addition u/s 68 on account of 10,92,603 Unsecured Loans in Rs. 15 Addition on account of Late Payment

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 478/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

account of Trade Payable in 1,49,349 Rs. - Addition on account Excess 9,01,000 Depreciation in Rs. 9,37,897 Addition u/s 68 on account of 10,92,603 Unsecured Loans in Rs. ITA Nos.477-478 & 529/Ahd/2024 Pawan Edifice Pyt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Assessment Years

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Shhlok Triton Associates, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 638/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

been disputed by the revenue. Since the repayment of the loans was made in the subsequent year(s) as stated above, addition u/s 68 of the Act is not permissible in view of binding decisions in cases of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narangji (supra), Ojas Tarmake (P.) ITA No.638/SRT/2024/AY 2014-15 Shhlok

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

books of account has been rejected and it is contended the entries of the rejected books of account cannot be considered for addition u/s 68 and 69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying Section ... assessment”. As regard applicability of section 69A of I. Tax Act by CIT(A) we submit that the ld AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has also submitted his submission for Section 68 of the Act. The ld AO being not satisfied

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 341/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

above, this notice may be treated as a notice in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, for the reason that addition u/s 68 can be made only in respect of credits infused during the year while the entire trade payables, irrespective year of receipt, relating

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corpn. Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2875/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Mahesh Mittal, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-5, Lucknow

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

ITA 73/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

taken from above five person as per ground no-2 is held as non-genuine loan and routing of his own money, therefore addition u/s 68 has been made. Accordingly, interest paid to M/s Ravinder Kumar Gupta HUF, Manjush Gupta & Khusubu Gupta total amounting to RE 1,50,337/is also ... taken from above five person as per ground no-2 is held as non- genuine loan and routing of his own money, therefore addition u/s 68 has Page 25 of 31 been made. Accordingly interest paid to M/s Ravinder Kumar Gupta HUF, Manjusha Gupta & Khushbu Gupta total amounting

Kulbhushan Sahtani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4066/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kulbhushan Sahtani, Vs Ito, 2525/7, Bedanpura, Ward-51(5), Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. New Delhi Pan-Bknps5543L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Goyal, Ar & Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

year.” 8. From the perusal of the provisions of section 68 of the Act it is very clear that assessing officer can make addition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e. (i) Appellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit; or (ii) Explanation offered ... 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

Devngi Jewellwers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 672/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

that the AO was justified in requiring the appellant to prove the identity of the buyers. He also observed that AO can make additions u/s. 68 of the Act without rejecting books of account. The appellant company did not provide item-wise details of the stocks, but instead provided quantitative ... appellant failed to establish satisfactorily the source of credit appearing in his books of account before the demonetization period. Regarding the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act, he observed that the appellant was unable to provide item-wise purchases, sales and stock data. Therefore, the stock register kept

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Visakhapatnam in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam versus M/s Hirapanna Jewellers and (vice-versa)) held that:- Addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE - Assessee had deposited the sum in high denominations of specified bank notes (SBNS) post demonetization CIT-A deleted the addition HELD THAT ... 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

Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow vs. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 403/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.403/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2) 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Complex, 3Rd Floor, Lucknow-226001. V. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt Ltd 24, Eldico Greens, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Arvpm1497R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 24.09.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. Whether On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Erred In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.6,34,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act To Commission Income Calculated At 1% Without Appreciating That The Assessee Had Failed To Furnish Satisfactory Explanation With Regard To Identify Of The Parties, Source & Genuineness Of The Transaction 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As & When Need To Doing So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. In This Case, Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Was Passed By The Assessing Officer Whereby The Assessee'S Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.6,34,42,150/-. Thereafter, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Total Credit Entries Of Rs.9.84 Crores & Matching Debit

For Appellant: Shri Raghunath Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 150Section 68

status (active), details? Directors. The AO has not even verify single company or conduct any enduring on subject matter. The AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Act. A perusal of the Sat, shows that if any cash as credit entry is found to be related to the assessee

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1927/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the act of the AO in making the addition u/s 68 of Rs.8,69,000/- in respect of Share application money received during the year. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1922/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Kanaiyalal Labhubhai Narola, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, (2), Surat

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

ITA 816/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Taxman 568 (Del.) and Shailash S. Patel, 97 taxmann.com 570 (Ahd — Trib.). 4.3 The CIT(A) further observed that the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act, which was not correct as per law because, in this case, the appellant was found to ITA No.816/SRT/2023/AY 2014-15 Kanhaiyalal Labhubhai ... appellate proceedings, after considering the facts of the case and submission of the appellant, the CIT(A) at para 5.5 onwards held that addition u/s 68 was not correct as per law because the appellant was found to be the owner of unexplained money (cash) of Rs.3

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shree Chanakya Education Society, Aundh, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2170/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

during the year, therefore, the addition could not have been made. Further, on account of bogus purchases how can the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 68 is also not known. 13 CO No.12/PUN/2025 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his alternate plank of argument submitted that search ... bogus and made addition of the same u/s 68 by treating the same as unexplained credit of the assessee and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that neither the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shree Chanakya Education Society, Aundh, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2155/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

restored. 9. We have heard the submissions made by both the sides. As regards the relief allowed by deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act, similar issue arose in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax v. Mundhra Construction (P.) Ltd. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 361 (Calcutta) in which ... aside as the addition has been deleted despite the facts being abnormal, these six companies not existing at the addresses mentioned and the addition u/s 68 has not been examined on appreciation of the facts of the case that the directors also did not appear. 11. Similar issue arose