“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

Dineshkumar Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1956/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M S Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

addition is made for reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. 5. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making addition U/S 68 of the Act, though no books of accounts are maintained. Dineshkumar Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4466/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 14ASection 69C

u/s.68 and 69C which are tabulated in the following manner:- Addition or 2015-16 Disallowances Assessee Appeal Department Appeal ITA ITA 4462/MUM/2024 4136/MUM/2024 Addition u/s 68 - 8,71,87,326 Disallowance of non- genuine Losses Addition u/s. 69C - 17,43,566 Commission Expenses Total Addition

Sourabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

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

ITA 712/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through

Section 143(3)Section 153A

conducted at premises of assessee in pursuance to which AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) and made addition u/s 68 on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain, since no incriminating material was found during course of search with regard to issue of addition

Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

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

ITA 711/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Sagar Jewellers, Porbandar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/RJT/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.222/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Sagar Jewellers Vs. Dcit Zaveri Bazar, Porbandar, Gujarat Circle-2(1), Jamnagar 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbfs5410L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. C. Thaker, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short ‘The Pcit’), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 21.02.2024, For The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2019-20. 2. The Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

upheld the proceedings u/s 263 valid to the extent addition made u/s 68 because the assessing officer has in his order made addition u/s 68 and then taxed it. at normal rates and accordingly to that extant ITAT, Rajkot found it erroneous. However as discussed in our case the assessing

Sumit Kesarwani, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(1)(4), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 98/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumit Kesarwani V. Ito 1(1)(F) 52/26, Naya Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Biopk6450P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 68Section 69A

68 of the Act. The AO, accordingly, computed the income of the assessee as under: Total income as per ITR : Rs.02,36,130/- Addition u/s. 68 : Rs.31,93,527/- Total assessed income : Rs.34,29,657/- Rounded off at : Rs.34,29,660/- 3. Aggrieved by the order passed ... books of account, it was held that when Assessee 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. I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

Jain any doubt. Accordingly,based on decisions as reproduced in other cases referred above,the LTCG was held to be genuine and the addition u/s 68 was deleted. 14. In another case of Manju Hiralal Baina in ITA No. 1026/Mum/2020 dated 15.4.2024,the same bench presided ... President has considered similar issue at length and deleted similar addition u/s 68 of the Act. 15. Reference could also be made of the decision in the case of Shailesh Jain HUF in ITA No.6068/M/2019 dated 16.02.2021 in which similar issue was involved w.r.t. shares of Four K. Animation

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

without any doubt. Accordingly, based on decisions as reproduced in other cases referred above,the LTCG was held to be genuine and the addition u/s 68 was deleted. 14. In another case of Manju Hiralal Baina in ITA No. 1026/Mum/2020 dated 15.4.2024,the same bench presided ... President has considered similar issue at length and deleted similar addition u/s 68 of the Act. 15. Reference could also be made of the decision in the case of Shailesh Jain HUF in ITA No.6068/M/2019 dated 16.02.2021 in which similar issue was involved w.r.t. shares of Four K. Animation

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

Navjyoti Farming Private Limited, Belapur vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panvel

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

ITA 1020/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Rs.16,54,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being the share capital and share application money received from five companies and addition u/s 68 of the Act being unsecured loan of Rs.66,20,00,000/- from two companies, the details of which are as under: S Name ... upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act as well as in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

Citrus Alpha Marine LLP, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward No-1, Nellore

ITA 928/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80

Shri Ansuman Chand was received / credited in the 2 books post incorporation of the assessee LLP on 31.08.2017, thus there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the current year. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred ... money from Smt.Dudala Madhavi was received / credited in the books post incorporation of the assessee LLP on 31.08.2017, thus there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the current year, moreso when the learned Assessing Officer in his remand report dated 15.01.2024 has duly confirmed the fact

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

ITA No. 598/JP/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Raj Kumari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Jaipur

ITA 1024/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 which are not applicable in assessee's case. The cash-credits being genuine, no addition u/s 68 is warranted and hence, consequential relief maybe granted. Ground No.4 The assessee craves your indulgency to add, amend or alter all or any ground

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shivi Impex Pvt. Ltd, Mittal Court, Mumbai

ITA 3963/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Shivi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ward–3(1)(1), Mittal Court, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai. M.K.Road, Pan : Abbcs2097N Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 68

creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction and the AO had simply brushed aside the plethora of evidences and made addition u/s 68 of the act. The relevant submissions are grouped as under. Identity of the creditors. The appellant argued that it had submitted all the necessary

M/S. Bhikshu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Jeevan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1538/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2009-2010

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

criteria u/s 68 for proving the capital raised. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition u/s 68 made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) was not justified ignoring the evidences filed.” Through the grounds, the appellant has not only

Hitesh Jagat Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4429/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(4) Hitesh Jagat Prekh R No. 218, Kautilya 2-3, Ground Floor, Shivam Bhavn, C-41 To C-43, Hatkesh Society, N.S. G Block, Bkc, Bandra Road, No.8, Vile Parle (W) (E), Mumbai – 400 056. Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Agqpp9134J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Allahabad) (2020) cash deposit claimed it from agricultural income prove to cultivation of agricultural produce by Khasra source of irrigation - cold storage evidence - Addition u/s 68 as undisclosed income - upheld. 13. Kee[ing in view, the above discussion as well as legal proposition we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised

Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Ahmednagar vs. ACIT Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2199/PUN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.2199/Pun/2024 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, V The Assistant Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, S Commissioner Of Income Nagar – Pune Road, Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar – 414001. Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm3572R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prasad Bhandari &Ms.Payal Rathi – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune For Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 03.03.2020 Passed U/Sec.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A)-2. Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Wrongly Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.25.00.00 Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act Inspite Of The Fact That All The Necessary Conditions Prescribed Under Section 68 Are Fulfilled. Therefore, Addition Confirmed Of Rs.25,00,000 May Please Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A)-2, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Wrongly Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.25,00,00 Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee. Therefore, Addition Confirmed Of Rs.25,00,000 May Please Be Deleted. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

notice u/s.148 dated 27/03/2015. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- is bogus and made an addition u/s 68 of the Act.The impugned Loan was claimed to be given by Daksha Diamond which is a concern belonging to Bhanwarlal Jain group. There

Nilesh Popatlal Gada, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 it be held that disallowance of claim of agriculture income of Rs 5,52,310/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing

Sunrise Gold, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(7), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1541/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunrise Gold Ito Ward 23(3)(7) Office No. 3, Mumbai. 3Rd Floor, Laxmi House, Vs. 177/179, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400002. Pan: Acufs0396M Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Dharamveer D. Yadav- Sr. D.R

Section 115Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

return of income. GROUND NO 2 Without Prejudice to Ground No 1 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit being cash sales of gold ornaments during April 2016 to June 2016 of Rs 5,54,482, Without appreciating ... which there are specific cash memos available with the assessee to explain the same. He further submitted that, an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made in respect of such sales as the documents are verifiable and forms part of the total turnover. 4.3. The Ld.AR further submitted that, total cash

Mr Pankaj Goshar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1256/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR