“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

ITO, Ward-22(3), New Delhi vs. Satcab Subscriber Services P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshito, Vs. Satcab Subscriber Services Ward-22(3), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Essel House Lawrence Road, Inidustrial Area, New Delhi, B-10, Delhi-110035 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aazcs4072N Assessee By : Shri Dhurv Dev Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Mehesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Dhurv Dev Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mehesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

whether the sales disclosed by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 93,34,85,432/- could be considered as a separate addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit in the in facts and circumstances of the instant case. Satcab Subscriber Services

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

ITA 2761/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 68

during the period as an unexplained cash deposit and assessee failed to satisfy him with relevant documents, accordingly he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Further he observed that assessee has taken advances from various persons during the year under consideration

Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases made during the year & payments made during the year. The AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and did not invoke provisions of sec. 41(1) of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has shown that the payments ... above deliberations and case laws relied upon by both the parties, we find that the AO was not justified in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act which has rightly been 13 Sh. Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu deleted the Id. CIT(A) and we concur with his findings. Thus

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad

ITA 866/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad Gujarat

ITA 865/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 830/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 829/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

Ma Chimanraoji Kadam Gr Bigar Seti Sah Path Mar Saswad, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2494/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO amounting to Rs.10,82,98,310/- as follows: -Addition u/s 68 of unexplained cash credit-Rs.9,81,47,719 -Disallowance of Interest Rs.1,01,29,686/- -Deduction u/s ... merits considering the peculiar facts of the case. 4. Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in making an addition u/s 68 of ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.10,82,77,405/- (Rs.9,81,47,719 Rs.1,01,29,686/-) as unexplained cash credits, without appreciating that, appellant

Kishor Jethalal Morbia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

appeal. 4. Ground no. 4:- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 15, 74, 847/-/- made in the assessment order on account of alleged bogus short term capital gains. The addition has been sustained ... assessment order. The amount has been taxed firstly as part of his returned income and also, again as a separate addition u/s 68 in the assessment order. Double taxation may not be permitted, in any case, in this appeal. 6. Ground no. 6:- The lower authorities erred in passing their

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4) Now Ward- 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Evexia Lifecare Limited ( Earlier Known As Kavit Industries Limited), Vadodara

ITA 1609/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Court of Delhi in the case of Pr.CIT v. Vijay Conductors India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that no addition u/s 68 shall be made in the case of conduit companies. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee itself relied on the statement of Shri Shirish

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 603/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, Vs. 3, Ml Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [Pan:Abxpj-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68Section 69A

case. 6.3.7 In light of the above discussion, it is clear that it is not appropriate for the AO to make addition u/s 68 of the Act by treating the agricultural income as unexplained cash credit. The agricultural income declared by the appellant is supported by documentary evidence

Arjun Rishi, Sainik Farms vs. ITO Ward 28(1), ITO Office Civic Centre

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

ITA 3020/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanarjun Rishi, Vs. Ito, Ward 28 (1), F – 79/18, Sainik Farms, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Agvpr4625D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 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 01.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. I) That The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,173/- Made By Ld. Ao Ward 28(1) Delhi Is Illegal, Unjust, Opposed To Facts & Suffers From The Vice Of Arbitrariness. Ii) That All Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

That on the facts of the case and in law, Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) have both erred in making and confirming addition u/s 68, which is not applicable in case of deposits in bank account, out of opening balance of cash in hand, since there is no credit

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Sanjay Laddha, Indore

ITA 658/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

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

side, we find merit in the submission made by Ld. AR that once the AO has rejected books of assessee u/s 145, the addition u/s 68 cannot be made. Their Lordship in CIT Vs. Dulla Ram (2014) 42 taxmann.com 349 (Punjab & Haryana HC) have approved this proposition in following terms ... assumed that the books were rightly rejected u/s 145(3), then in that event also the AO is wrong in making addition u/s 68 as has been held by ITAT, Indore in *Dharmendra Doshi (supra).* Therefore, the addition made by AO is not sustainable for this reason also. At this

M/S. Positive Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2492/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

showing total loss of ₹ 7,072/- and the assessment was made at the total income of ₹ 1,62,91,100/- after making AN addition u/s 68 of the Act at ₹ 1,62,90,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ACIT-3, Lucknow vs. Harshit Garg, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 451/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

deduction claimed by appellant u/s 37 being Rs.70,00,000/- deposited by appellant in scheme PMGKY. The CIT Appellant has deleted the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,98,53,859/-and allowed the Grounds No 1 to 9 of the appellant. The appellant is filing alternate grounds in respect ... That the provision of section 68 apply to only credit entries or entries found in the books of account. Hence the addition u/s 68 for the transactions other than credit entry in books is bad in law.” 3. Subsequent to the case being taken up for hearing, the assessee withdrew

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Atul Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraincome Tax Officer Vs. Atul Aggarwal Room No. 2609, E-Ii, B-56, Molarband Village, Block, Civic Centre, Minto Badarpur, New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Abzpa2756K

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

acceptance of ‘Special Banking Notes’. Therefore, the cash deposited in the accounts of the Assessee has been treated as unexplained and made addition u/s 68 of the Act and made addition in the hands of the Assessee. 6. During the first appellateproceedings, the Assessee submitted the certificate issued

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 94/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

necessary STT on the sale of these shares. However, the AO was not convinced with the assessee's explanation and proceeded to make addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO considered the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,08,33,750/-as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 ... relied upon by you in order to initiate proceedings u/s 148. Same is attached as Annexure 1. 3. You are proposing to make addition u/s 68 as unexplained credit whereas, no books of accounts were required to be maintained by the assessee being earning income only

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 93/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 92/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

Sharad Goel, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 310/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 310/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

under such circumstances, Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) 6 Sharad Goel vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur had rightly adjudicated the issue and have sustained addition u/s 68. Regarding lump sum, the addition of 5% from Discount, Repair & Maintenance and Workshop Expenses of Rs. 2,69,315/-, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that