“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

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

held that bank passbook is also the books of the assessee within the meaning of section 2(12A) and, therefore, addition u/s 68 can also be made, irrespective of whether credit entries are made in the books of account of the assessee or not. In view of the above discussion

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

Dinesh Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3009/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3009/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 68

operators to evade taxes. Having formed such belief, the AO treated the entire long-term capital gain as unexplained and made an addition u/s 68 of the Act. 6. 1. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 7. We have given a thoughtful

Sarnath Finance Ltd., Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 68

raised the issue that the AO did not reject the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act before making addition u/s 68 of the Act. The said objection of the appellant does not have any validity in the eyes of law. For the shake of clarity Section

Vertool Consultancy LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1132/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 68Section 69

additions :- a) Estimation of business income @ 8% - Rs. 13,67,570/- b) Addition u/s 69 of the Act - Rs.1,03,13,435/- c) Addition u/s 68 of the Act - Rs. 80,57,897/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before

Bk Educational and Welfare Society, Nashik vs. ITO(E), Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1429/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

Section 11(1)Section 115BSection 12ASection 131(1)(b)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee is in appeal before ld.CIT(A) raising following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,51,000 made by the A.O. by treating donation received from trustee, Dr. Bhagwan Nivrutti Elmane as unexplained cash credit without appreciating that ... said addition made u/s 68 was not justified on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 1,10,000 made by the A.O. by treating donation received from Mr. Bhagwan Dnyanoba Sanap as unexplained cash credit without appreciating that

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4784/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, Circle-52(1), 23-25, Bengali Market, New Delhi Delhi Pin 1100 02 Pin: 1100 01 Pan No. Aakpg9900B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand & Ms. VashnaviFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Order, it is observed that the Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3)r.w.s. 144B of the Act after making an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Aggrieved appellant, by the Order of the Assessing Officer, is before this office

DCIT, Circle 16(1), New Delhi vs. Mgv Jain Jwellers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 112/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mgv Jain Jewellers Circle-16(1), Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Shop New Delhi No.1,2780/20, Karol Bagh, Bedonpura, New Delhi-110005. Pan-Aagcm3999K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

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

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

ACIT vs. s. Suretech Hospital and Research Centre Ltd (2006) 104 TT) (ITAT Nagpur), it was held by the Hon'ble ITAT that addition u/s 68 was rightly deleted where the assessee had produced all the relevant information about the creditors including name, address, details of cheques, repayment of loan

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. S A Builders and Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 296/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

addition confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is regarding the advances received from the customers. The Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in para 2.1 as under: Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. S A Builders and Developers, Hyderabad

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 295/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

addition confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is 11. The regarding the advances received from the customers. Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in para 2.1 as under: Advance from customers 2.1 During scrutiny it was seen that amounts shown under the head

S A Builders & Developers, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 259/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

S A Builders & Developers, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 258/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

addition confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is regarding the advances received from the customers. The Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in para 2.1 as under: Page

Manavi Goel Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 626/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: us submitted that out of three appeals [ITA No.524/Mum/2025, ITA No.626/Mum/2025 and ITA 374/Mum/2025] preferred by the same Assessee listed for hearing today, two the appeals [ITA No.524/Mum/2025, ITA No.626/Mum/2025] can be dismissed as being duplicate appeals since the Assessee has impugned the same Assessment Order dated 26/12/2024 passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions given by the DRP vide order, dated 26/11/2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

appeals (e-filled), we find that in all the three appeals the Assessee has raised identical grounds which read as under: “1) Addition u/s 68 on account of trading in penny series - Addition of Rs. 25,95,819/-: The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding back the Income

Natha Pandit Raut, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 1766/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Natha Pandit Raut Dcit, Circle 2, Pune Office No.101, Global Port Pashankar Auto Complex, Off Mumbai Vs. Bangalore Highway, Baner, Pune - 411045 Pan: Aatpr6854L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 54Section 68

recurring issues of (i) LTCG viz., treating the LTCG declared by the assessee as business income, (ii) denial of claim of indexation, (iii) addition u/s 68 and (iv) addition under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He further noted that the assessee has declared Rs.4

Manavi Goel Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 524/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

Sunita Sarda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 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 ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

brevity :- “A. Statutory ingredients of Section 68 not satisfied- Absence of jurisdictional facts; 10. It is submitted to lawfully impose the impugned addition u/s. 68 of the Act, the statutory ingredients thereunder must be satisfied, provided as follows: "Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books ... Mayawati 338 ITR 563 [DEL], that where books of accounts are not maintained by the Assessee, the Revenue cannot make an addition u/s 68 of the Act. 15. Additionally, there is also no material placed on record by the Ld. AO vide the impugned Assessment order dated 13.12.2018 that

Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 992/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.992/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Mansukhbhai Babubhai Dhaduk Vs. The Ito, 16, Dharmajivan Society, Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. New Chopati, Varachha Surat Road, Surat. 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abzpd0899G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69

taxmann.com 149 (Guj.). The CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that AO was justified in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the persons were of small means and cash deposits were made, which in turn were given as loans

Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Patel (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit Present Juridiction the ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 780/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the AO had wrongly made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR also requested to admit additional evidences in support of the cash and credit entries appearing in the bank account

Aakash Universal Limited ( Merged Entity Rajkiran Textiles Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1197/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

confirming the addition of Rs. 25,000,000/- without considering the facts. 2. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 of the Act, being amount received on issue of shares on premium without appreciating the details submitted by the Appellant: 2. 3. The learned