“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, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Aristro Capital Markets Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 693/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

reflected in the regular books, accounts record and returns the same cannot be assessed u/s 153C of the Act for making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 692 & 693/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Aristro Capital Markets Limited 5. Upon hearing the submission

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Aristro Capital Markets Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 692/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee Less: Valuation of sale consideration as Rs, 63,00,000/- shown at sale deed/registry Less: Addition u/s 68 already made for the amounts paid as biana/advance during the F.Y. Rs. 38,50,000/- 2011 -12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 Balance amount of sale consideration paid

Shree Halsidhnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Maharashtra vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kolhapur, ITO Ward Two One Kolhapur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated above

ITA 872/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.870&872/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Halsidhnath Nagari Ito Ward 2(1), Kolhapur Sahakari Patsanstha Vs Maryadit Ari Patsanstha Maryadit K475 E Ward, Shahu Road, Shahupuri, Kolhapur- 416003 Maharashtra Pan No. Aadas0448N Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

made the addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 7,60,25,549/- for A.Y. 2013- 14 and addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 6,62,16,945/- for A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee has not filed the return of income and also

Shree Halsidhnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Maharashtra vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kolhapur, ITO Ward Two One Kolhapur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated above

ITA 870/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1012/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

issues involved. 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.79,84,48,192/- being transactions with M/s. Orchid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. despite the fact that ... receipt by assessee. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.79,84,48,192/- being transactions with M/s Orchid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ignoring that the assessee received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5687/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5686/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

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

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

realization of amount due from the accepted debtor as on 31.03.2011. So as per the audited books of accounts as on 30.03.2011, no addition u/s 68 could be made in the year under consideration. It was further argued that to‘M/s Growfast Realtors Pvt. Ltd.’, no sales have been made

Sri Shivakumara Swamy Credit Coop Society Limited, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 474/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

books of account, it was held that when Assessee already admitted sale proceeds as revenue receipts . Therefore there is no case of addition u/s 68" 19.1 Coming to the case on hand, the assessee has clearly shown that the identity of the depositors (i.e., its members), the genuineness

Sukumar Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 5401/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwals.A.No.524/Del/2024 [In Ita No.5401/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gagan Kumar, Adv. & Shri Gagan Deep, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

were placed on record by the Ld. AR for the assessee. Ld. AR further submits that the AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act which is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case as the identity of the V.P.S Healthcare ... offered any income/loss from the transfer of such shares in the return filed for the year under appeal. The AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the amount received as advance from S.A.No.524/Del/2024 & V.P.S Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by holding the same as unexplained credits

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are

ITA 2165/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit Cc – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम M/S. Tirupati Developers. 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W.), Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रति आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 110/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Tirupati Developers. V/S. Dcit Cc – 7(3), 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi बनाम Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Industrial Estate, New Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Link Road, Andheri (W.), Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

ground of appeal: 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 6,93,00,000/- with respect to the unsecured loans received by it, without appreciating that the retraction of statement is only

M/S Chhanabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 757/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 41(1)Section 68

Rs.3,89,800/- and only Rs.1,19,800/- was outstanding as on 31.03.2020. He submitted that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition u/s 68 but enhanced the same income u/s 41(1) of the Act without issuing notice for the said enhancement. We have again perused the facts

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

whereas the same was passed on 19.09.2021. The Ld.AR submitted that through the order u/s. 147 dated 19.09.2021 the Ld.AO has made addition u/s 68 of Rs.29,77,850/- to the Page - 3 - of 9 ITA Nos. 1290, 1291,1292 & 1293 /Chny/2025 returned income on account of unexplained cash deposits

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1292/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1291/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1290/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Anil Kumar Bhakkar, Delhi

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

ITA 4769/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar Bhakkar, New Delhi. E – 99 – B, Mansarover Garden, Delhi – 110 015. (Pan : Aampb0474B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.9,65,820/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Based On The Information Available With The Revenue That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Substantial Amount As Compared

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 68

assessee and ld. CIT (A) has allowed the appeal on merits by observing as under :- “6.1.1 Although the AO has made addition u/s 68 by not accepting the contention of the appellant that cash deposit is made from cash sales. However, no where in the assessment order ... taxmann.com 26 (Delhi) has held that once the assessee has discharged its initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction, addition u/s 68 cannot be made without any additional material to support such a move. However, in the present case, no additional finding has been done by AO which

Mallya Real Estates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not commenced its business and where no business has commenced, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction ... Supreme Court in NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) settled the law, in the context of addition u/s 68, that merely filing the primary documents such as ITRs, PAN, RoC etc is not sufficient to discharge the onus to establish creditworthiness of investor companies

M/S. Green Earth Biogas Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 185/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN