“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, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

cast by section 68 of the Act to explain the credit in its books of account and the AO has rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the act. 22 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena b) Credit of Rs. 50 Lakhs:  The assessee failed to provide any explanation regarding ... taxmann.com 346 (SC)  MrsRupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 345 (Allahabad) B. The Assessing Officer has made the remaining additions u/s 68 of the Act citing reasons for each addition, which are different from each other. The Order of Assessing Officer is heavily relied upon

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune, Pmt Building Pune vs. Jaiprakash Pravinchandra Shroff, Pune

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

ITA 1893/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1893/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-2, Pune. Vs. Jaiprakash Pravinchandra Shroff, 1215/2, Pankaj, Apte Road, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aceps9112P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Assessee By Shri V. L. Jain : Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified Taking The View That There Has Been Apparent Error In Filing Return Of Income Without Clearly Rebutting The Findings Of The Assessing Officer? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Concluding That Rs.41,68,46,544/- Is The Correct Capital Balance Whereas The Assessee Himself Has Declared Rs.77,38,41,557/- As His Capital Balance In His Itr Without Clear Findings & Reasoning.

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(2)

that there was no big mistake since it was simply a data punching error, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. Ld. AR reiterated the submission made before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to confirm the order passed

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4599/MUM/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 68

completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26/02/2016 wherein issue of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon were considered and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the AO. Thereafter notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued reopening the completed assessment. The showcause notice

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

afterthought but not found verified from the books of accounts of the assessee. Appellant has also stated that further AO has made addition u/s 68. This section applies when any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the source of which is not explained to the satisfaction ... sale as per the profit & loss account found at page 58 & 59 of Exhibit 1 as discussed in ground No.5. AO further made addition u/s 68. This section applies when any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the source of which is not explained to the satisfaction

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 447/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

afterthought but not found verified from the books of accounts of the assessee. Appellant has also stated that further AO has made addition u/s 68. This section applies when any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the source of which is not explained to the satisfaction ... This is a dumb noting and therefore the addition confirmed on the basis of such noting is uncalled for. 2. AO has made addition u/s 68 of the Act. This section applies when any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the source of which is not explained

Shri Jitendrasinh Bharatsinh Chauhan, Silvassa vs. ITO, Ward-Silvassa, Silvassa

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

ITA 969/SRT/2024[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

Section 250(6) the LT. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to confirm A.O.’s addition u/s 68 of the Act for Rs.52,30,000/- being credit entry in appellant’s capital account with his proprietary concern namely M/s Shree Sai Transport

Piyush Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Indore, ITO

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

ITA 368/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 199CSection 250Section 68

DelTrib, the assessee filed declaring NIL income. Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. Assessment order came to be passed by making an addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by assessee. It was held that specific case of assessee is that sale proceeds ... proper. When the assessee had regular cash sale and deposit of cash in bank accounts and if nothing incrementing is found contrary then addition u/s 68 of such cash sale would tantamount to clouble taxation. Deartment appeal was dismissed by the honourable High Court in case of PCIT (Central

Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 3, Jaipur

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

ITA 13/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment was concluded after making following additions: S.No Addition Made on account of Amount (Rs.) 1. Interest Expenses Rs. 47,74,320/- 2. Addition u/s 68 of unsecured loans Rs. 82,00,000/- 3. Interest on TDS Rs. 1,44,519/- 4. Trading loss Rs. 1,50,529/- 5. Locker

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Sarovoar Realty LLP, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 544/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68

appellant. Having failed to conduct any further enquiry into the source of the source the AO could not have made the addition u/s 68 of Rs 87, 35,000/- on conjecture and surmises alone. Thus, the addition of Rs. 87,35,000/- u/s 68 is hereby deleted and grounds

Om Prakash Tantia, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 4737/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

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

Kuber Metpack P. Ltd (Formerly Known As Kelvin Metpack P.Ltd), Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

with questionnaire. The assessee filed their submission but not reply the show cause notice. The Assessing officer completed the assessment after making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. R.P.K. Gems and Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1206/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR, (Thru” V.H.) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@

Section 145(3)Section 68

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 fax the same u/s 1158BE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ... feel that mere suspecting the amount of cash deposit into the bank account during the demonetization period cannot be a basis of making addition u/s 68 of the Act without rejecting the books of accounts. The business of the assessee firm was in existence prior to the period of demonetization

Sanjay Balasaheb Shelake, Sangli vs. CIT(A), Sangli

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

ITA 191/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M MaliFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

Ground No.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B and addition U/s 68 of Rs.18,62,590/- is bad in law as much as the order has been passed without following mandate of law. 2.1) Addition made

Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jewel India, Bandra West, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3622/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer- Vs. Jewel India, Shop No.1, 23(2)(1), Kashi Kunj Waterfield Mumbai-400050 Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. Aalfj4863D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

During the assessment proceedings, after seeking reply from the assessee with regard to the source of cash 3 deposit, the Ld.AO made addition u/s 68 of the IT Act by holding that assessee has manipulated cash sales and accumulated that cash up to the date of declaration of demonetization

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh vs. Ms Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories Education Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 94/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

Order deserves to be quashed in absence of incriminating material. 3. Ground No. 3 – Approval u/s 153D. 4. Ground No. 4 – Addition u/s 68 on account of amount received from Jai Ambe Pharmaceutical (JAAPL) holding the company as a shell company. 5. Ground No. 5 – Disallowance of 80IC on sales ... Approval u/s 153D. 4. Ground No. 4 - Difference in valuation as per DVO report and books of accounts. 5. Ground No. 5- Addition u/s 68. 6. Ground No. 6 – Addition u/s 68 on account of receipts from employees of B.M. Pharmaceuticals. 7. Ground No. 7 and 8 - Carry forward

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh vs. Ms Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratotries and Education Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 93/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories and Education Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 857/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)