“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 308/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

shared with the assessee do not figure the name of the assessee. Reference was made to various judicial decisions to oppose any addition u/s 68. The assessee also furnished various documents in support of unsecured loans which include copies of ITR, confirmation from lenders along with relevant extract of bank

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Crystal Ceramic Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 860/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

consistently held that when loan taken by assessee is repaid through account payee cheques, loans received by assessee cannot be subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. Considering binding decisions of courts as referred supra and fact that appellant has already repaid the loan in. subsequent assessment years ... given, onus shifts from assessee to revenue. In absence of anything contradictory brought on the table, it wouldn't be fair to confirm addition u/s 68 of the Act. Gujarat High Court went on to the extent of confirming that even if creditors didn't turn up on issue

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Crystal Ceramic Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 859/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Crystal Ceramics Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 682/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

M/S. Nova Home Appliances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8329/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Nova Home Appliances Private Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Limited, Mumbai Office No.8, Second Floor Ashoka Shopping Center, Vs. G T Hospital Complex, Lt Marg, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aadcn0493N (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

when valid condition of section 147 is not fulfilled. M/s. Nova Home Appliances Private Limited 2. CIT[A] has erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 inspite of producing all documents in support of loan taken appellant has established all three ingredients u/s 68. 3. CIT [A] has erred ... confirming addition u/s 68 when AO has come to conclusion these transaction squarely cover by the provision of section 69. 4. CIT[A] has erred in confirming addition u/s 68 when notice u/s 133[6] is served on creditor and creditors has positively confirmed in response to notice u/s

Channamma Rachappa Saradagi, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2065/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2022-23 Mrs. Channamma Rachappa Saradagi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Srinidhi Transports, Ward 6(3)(1), Sangondeshwar Nagar, Kamatagi, Bangalore. Amingad, Bagalkot – 587 120. Pan: Aweps 8300D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Shri K. Saravanan, Addl.Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi1. Captioned Appeal For Ay 2022-23 Is Filed By Mrs. Channamma Rachappa Saradagi Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 29 August 2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 22Nd Of March 2024 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Was Dismissed. Therefore The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. Page 2 Of 11

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Saravanan, Addl.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 144BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 68

sustained as there is no sum found credited in the books of the assessee which is necessarily the initial triggering point of making addition u/s 68 of the act. 18. Further in only one case of Rachappa Saradagi there is also a credit received of Rs.1.2 crores during the year

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7171/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ALLEGED CASH LOAN TAKEN OF Rs. 50,00,000/-u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE 1. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of alleged Cash Loan having been taken of Rs.50,00,000/- through Mr. Nilesh Bharani Partner of Evergreen Enterprises without ... placed on his statement without any corroborative evidence. d. Case laws relied upon by the appellant are not considered nor distinguished. 3. The addition u/s 68 1.ws.115BBE for cash credit is bad in law as the said provisions are not applicable to the appellarit 4. The addition u/s 68

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7169/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Anand Kumar Jain, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

sale invoices, and were part of regular business activity since many years. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 read with section 115BBE, even when no credit was found in the books within the meaning of section 68, and the source of cash

Kiara Amit Duhlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8098/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115BSection 147Section 68

identity and capacity of the donor but also the immediate and proximate source of the very funds used for the stated gift, the addition u/s 68 cannot be sustained. The approach of the Ld. CIT(A), in treating the gift as suspect primarily on the ground that the gift deed ... directed to be deleted. 11. Since the very foundation for invoking section 115BBE in the present case is the addition u/s 68, once the addition itself is deleted, the consequential application of section 115BBE also does not survive. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order

Param Propertt Devloper, Ambernath vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

ITA 3243/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarit(Ss)A/3241/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) It(Ss)A/3242/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) It(Ss)A/3243/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Param Property Developers V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 30, Jivandeep बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle Apartment, Station Road, Ambarnath(E), Thane 421501, Maharashtra 2,Thane, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane- 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfp9248G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Pride Infrastructure It(Ss)A/3309/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) It(Ss)A/3310/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 34, Ketan Bhavan, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle Suryoday Chs Ltd., Station Road, Ambarnath(E), Thane 421 501, Maharashtra 2,Thane, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane- 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aamfp3255G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page | 2

Section 132Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle Nagpur, Nagpur vs. Vidharbha Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur

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

ITA 789/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

loan and had furnished the identity of loan givers and the assessee was not beneficiary of loan as the same was repaid, no addition u/s 68 of the Act, therefore, the same being in accordance with law, has to be upheld. 15. So far as the decision relied ... that the assessee was not the beneficiary as loan was repaid during the same year or even in subsequent year, then no addition u/s 68 of the Act could be made. 12 18. I find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Bairagra Builders

ACIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Trishul Realty Infra LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7649/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

following grounds of appeal: 1. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Ac 1961 of Rs. 40,00,000/- being accommodation entry received from M/s. MahagouriVintrade Put. Ltd. by routing it through ... Considering our submission, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has concluded as under:- 7.11 in view of the above facts, I find that the addition u/s. 68 of the Act is uncalled for in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In any case, it is pertinent to note that

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

upheld on grounds not forming part of the recorded reasons is beyond the scope of valid reassessment and hence bad in law. Addition U/s 68 – Rs. 39,53,95,619 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

Avanish Overseas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8249/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

showing total income of Rs.5,99,870. The Assessing Officer in assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 has made addition u/s 68 of unsecured loan balance of Rs.2,41,70,424/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal before theLd. CIT(A), assessee ... showing total income of Rs.4,00,270/-. The Assessing Officer in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has made addition u/s 68 of unsecured loan balance of Rs.93,36,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. As the facts and legal issues are identical

Avanish Overseas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8228/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2727/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Ratan Kumar Goel &For Respondent: Shri Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

complied with by the assessee. Finally, the Id. AO made the = Page |3 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained income/ credit of 22,00,00,000/-. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT (A) dismissed

Dharambir, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4860/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year 2014-15 Dharambir Vs. National Faceless Assessment H. No.227, Pandwala, Centre, Delhi Kalan, Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan No.Agypy8801D Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Manpreet Singh Kapoor, Ca Sh. Rajendra Singh Rathoe, Advocate Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 68

ingredients for invoking were not present. 8. That the Ld.AO has erred in law & facts and confirmed by CIT (A) by making an addition u/s 68 on account of cash deposit amounting to Rs.1,12,01,000/-, which is bad in law as per the facts & circumstances of the case