← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatax Inida Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4635/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

before us therefore, we find no infirmity in these observations of Ld.CIT(A). 27. Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability ... bogus, has held as under: 7. On careful consideration of above rival submission, first of all, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act, by observing that despite several opportunity the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction and thus could

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Bajaj Rubber Company Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 2631/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Bajaj Rubber Company Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-15, C-47, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, Mayapuri, Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccb0949Gf Co 74/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 2631/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bajaj Rubber Company Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C-47, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Central Circle-15, Phase-Ii, Mayapuri, New Delhi Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccb0949Gf Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

addition has been deleted, on which, we do not find any infirmity. Hence, there is no question of making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In any event, cash sales have already been disclosed by the assessee which has been

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Madhav Bhageria, New Delhi

ITA 2059/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ITA No.2059/Del/2024 & C.O.No.109/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

DCIT Central Circle 4, New Delhi vs. Grand Estate LLP, New Delhi

ITA 1389/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Revenue before us therefore, we find no infirmity in these observations of Ld.CIT(A). 27.Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability

Amit Upadhyay, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3046/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Amit Upadhyay Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.101, Prem Co. Ward-1(5), Pvt. Society Sector- Faridabad 21C, Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abepu0188Q

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

assessee had repaid the loan in next financial year. Hence we hold that this is not a fit case for making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground

Netafim Agricultural Financing Agency Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 507/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 507/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Netafim Agricultural V/S. Acit, Circle 15(2)(1), Financing Agency Pvt. Ltd. बिाम Mumbai 308, Windfall, 3 Rd Floor, D Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Wing, Sahar Plaza Aayakar Bhavan, M K Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400020 Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcn7106J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Sanjeev Aditya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Sujatha Iyanagar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev AdityaFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyanagar
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

Authority, CIT (A) 24, Mumbai is against law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The First Appellate Authority erred in making addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE to the tune of Rs. 34,20,458/-. 3. The First Appellate Authority erred in passing order without taking cognizance

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3550/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,31,83,032/-. Ld. AO had made an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 19,26,64,275/- by holding that the trade receivables shown by the assessee were fictitious and hence, treated ... pass best judgment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on the record and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of the amounts shown as trade receivables in all the above-mentioned AYs. 4. The CIT(A), in his appellate order

Income Tax Officer - Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,31,83,032/-. Ld. AO had made an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 19,26,64,275/- by holding that the trade receivables shown by the assessee were fictitious and hence, treated ... pass best judgment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on the record and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of the amounts shown as trade receivables in all the above-mentioned AYs. 4. The CIT(A), in his appellate order

Income Tax Officer - Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3512/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,31,83,032/-. Ld. AO had made an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 19,26,64,275/- by holding that the trade receivables shown by the assessee were fictitious and hence, treated ... pass best judgment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on the record and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of the amounts shown as trade receivables in all the above-mentioned AYs. 4. The CIT(A), in his appellate order

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3511/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,31,83,032/-. Ld. AO had made an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 19,26,64,275/- by holding that the trade receivables shown by the assessee were fictitious and hence, treated ... pass best judgment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on the record and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of the amounts shown as trade receivables in all the above-mentioned AYs. 4. The CIT(A), in his appellate order

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the

ITA 594/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

escaped the assessment due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. While here is a case where Ld. AO intends to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act, for any sum found credited in the books, by rebutting the explanation given by the assessee u/s 68 ... account were not rejected and the sales of the assessee have not been disturbed the Revenue authorities are precluded from making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period.” 16. In view of above material fact and well

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 593/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, E-4, Industrial Area, Central Circle 14, Panipat, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

escaped the assessment due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. While here is a case where Ld. AO intends to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act, for any sum found credited in the books, by rebutting the explanation given by the assessee u/s 68 ... account were not rejected and the sales of the assessee have not been disturbed the Revenue authorities are precluded from making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period.” 16. In view of above material fact and well

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 573/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, E-4, Industrial Area, Central Circle 14, Panipat, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

escaped the assessment due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. While here is a case where Ld. AO intends to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act, for any sum found credited in the books, by rebutting the explanation given by the assessee u/s 68 ... account were not rejected and the sales of the assessee have not been disturbed the Revenue authorities are precluded from making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period.” 16. In view of above material fact and well

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 548/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, E-4, Industrial Area, Central Circle 14, Panipat, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

escaped the assessment due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. While here is a case where Ld. AO intends to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act, for any sum found credited in the books, by rebutting the explanation given by the assessee u/s 68 ... account were not rejected and the sales of the assessee have not been disturbed the Revenue authorities are precluded from making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period.” 16. In view of above material fact and well

Bgm Telecommunications Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi-1, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 4061/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Bgm Telecommunications Pvt. Vs. Pcit, Ltd., Delhi-1, D-288/289, Wadhwa Complex New Delhi Gali No. 10, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aagcb2484E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Fca Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 154Section 263Section 68

facts of the case. The submissions of the assessee that there was no basis for addition in assessment order is not acceptable as addition u/s 68 of the 1. T. Act was made in view of the fact that explanation 2 | P a g e offered by the assessee ... appeal before CIT(A) but cannot be rectified by AO u/s 154 of the I. T. Act to the effect of deleting the additions u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. 6.3. In the current order u/s 154 of the I. T. Act, AO has transgressed to the territory

Ambey Laboratories Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 2334/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanambey Laboratories Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2), Ground Floor, Property No.555, Delhi. Tarla Mohalla Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaaca4317R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 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 31.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 04.11.2017 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,30,39,,439/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

same amount from unknown or other sources. Since assessee has not proved the genuineness of the transactions, he proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Further he observed that assessee has claimed financial cost to the extent of Rs.5,10,512/- in its Profit & Loss account ... assessee company, the account of the parties were credited with same amount from unknown sources/parties" is no ground for making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. It is humbly submitted that there is no requirement under the law that Investor has to made the investment out of income only

Dwarka Jewellers Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 935/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

factual matrix, we hold that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse to the facts on record in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained money. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 67,00,000/- is deleted. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without discussing and considering the grounds and relied upon decisions on the addition u/s 68 and 69C. 3. It is therefore, requested to quash the assessment order and /or delete the additions." 2. The brief facts of the case are that ... income and disclose fully and truly the material facts relating to the above transaction. (ii) In the assessment order the AO has made additions u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 7,45,080/- on account of unexplained cash credits. (iii) In the assessment order there is no finding that any books

Shri Prabhudayal Beriwal, Jyotinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh

ITA 93/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

with the following grounds: “1. For that the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax erred in law and fact of the case while making addition u/s 68 for unsecured loan of Rs 1,11,00,000 taken from Premsagar Commercial Private Limited 2. For that the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

Dayal (supra), is applied to the facts of the case, it is clear that the Id. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition u/s. 68 of the IT Act. In the present case, the assessee has not adduced any sufficient evidence before the authorities below to prove the creditworthiness ... held as under: “7. On careful consideration of above rival submission, first of all, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act, by observing that despite several opportunity the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of lender and genuniness of transaction and thus could not discharge