“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

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

reopening the present case u/s 147/148 of the Act is merely on suspicious and devoid of authority of law. 78. The impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified as there is no sum found credited in books, rather the amount for which impugned addition is made ... judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the 103taxmann.com 48 case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd is in relation to addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital issued to unidentified parties. The said decision is not with respect to capital gain exemption; thus, the case

Sandip Dohare, Gondia vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gondia

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 533/NAG/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

explanation. The deposits were according to his trade practices and therefore, without bringing anything contrary, the Ld. AO was unjustified in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The appellant had deposited the sale consideration realized in cash with the banks and hence it cannot be considered as unexplained

Abubakar Mohammedsab Qureshi, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Ward, Solapur

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

ITA 110/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule

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

NFAC to substantiate the source of income for 4 investing in various assets which is the basis for making addition u/s 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be directed to admit those additional evidences ... houses to whom the live stock are eventually supplied in respect of which he earns commission. We find although the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of investment in certain assets such as mobile purchases

Bath Affair, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 49(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical

ITA 916/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

made u/s 68 or u/s 69 of the Act. Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, assessee had taken to argument that no addition u/s 68 was permissible since the credit in the form of cash was available in assessee’s bank account or to say in the books of account

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Juicy Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2254/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2254/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Acit, Juicy Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, Vs. 1643, Sector-B, Pocket-1, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacj9570D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the shareholders and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) after analyzing the evidences held that there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act. We do not find any good reason to reverse the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as none of these findings

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 827/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

other assessment years under consideration are identical, though quantum may differ. 7. The returned income of the assessee was assessed after making addition u/s 68 of the Act which was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. No. 824 to 827/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 69 to 72/Mum/2025 3 It was strongly

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 825/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

Harsha Harsh Varandani, Mumbai vs. ITO -22(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4729/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4729/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Harsha Harsh Varandani V/S. Ito-22(1)(5), Mumbai 8 Prem Udyan Society, 9Th बिधम 308, Piramal Chambers & 12Th Floor, R J Corner Lalbaugh, Parel, Road, Khar West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpn6280H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Asoo NihalaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 250Section 68

foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. Ground No 1 is general in nature. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to addition u/s 68 of the Act confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) – Rs. 1,26,35,633/-. 4.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring total income

Atlantis Medicare Private Limited, Patna vs. Dc/Ac Circle-1, Patna

ITA 555/PAT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKTA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI

Parshavnath Associates, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1358/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

survey should be considered as earned from business activity. If the argument of the assessee are accepted then there will be no addition u/s 68, 69, 694 or 69C in case the assessee is engaged in some business activity. This is not found to be acceptable as per the provisions ... survey should be considered as earned from business activity. If the argument of the assessee are accepted then there will be no addition u/s 68, 69, 69A or 69C in case the assessee is engaged in some business activity. This is not found to be acceptable as per the provisions

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

Spolo Ceramic Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. DCIT, Circle, Morbi

ITA 953/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.953/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Spolo Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Vs. Survey No. 203/P1, Nr. Amardham, Ring Road, Matel Road, At. Dhuva, Dist. Rajkot - 360001 Morbi - 363622 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxcs0845B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld CIT(DR)

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

total income. 3.1. That the Ld AO make an order with under mentioned observation Total Income as per return of income 0/- Addition u/s 68 in respect of unexplained cash credits 2,02,68,000/-* Total assessee income…. Rs. 2,02,68,000/- 4. That the assessee filed an appeal

Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jpr, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

filed by the assessee: Sr. Particulars Amount Rs. No. 1 Total income as declared in the return of income 2,05,280 2 Addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of increase in capital 2,56,03,0777 3 Addition on account of business income ... unsecured loan received from Sh. Mohanlal Sharma by the appellant. The cash credits received from Sh. Mohanlal Sharma have already been included for addition u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld. AO. The same has been again added to the income of the appellant by the Ld. AO making

Techno Tteaching Infosolution Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 68

Techno Teaching Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. to why it should be allowed. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the three ingredients i.e. identity, creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness

Amina Nathu Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal ShrimalFor Respondent: 11.03.2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

savy. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the additions u/s. 68 on account of amount deposited in the bank to the tune of Rs. 2,95,31,790 due to non- submission of Information ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 made ex-parte by the Assessing Officer.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual carrying

Graceunited Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 10(38)Section 68

entire assessment has been based upon wrong facts since the entire trading in shares has been absorbed in the sale of shares, making addition u/s 68 of the Act of few chosen scrips would amount to double addition of the same transactions. On the given facts of the case

Graceunited Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2046/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 10(38)Section 68

M/S. Nanak Chand Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

cash withdrawal in the books of account of the assessee firm. Ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the explanation of the assessee and confirmed the addition u/s 68 by observing that in para 25 of the order as under: “25. However, with regard to the addition made of Rs.30