“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, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal For Revenue : Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DRFor 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

ITA 1223/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

DCIT CC 7(4), Mumbai vs. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt Ltd (Now Known As Imperial Renaissaice Reniasance Reality Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2045/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Cc-7(4), Mumbai V/S. Poddar Renaissance Reality Room No. 659, Aaykar बनाम Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Bhavan, M.K. Road, Imperial Renaissance Mumbai-400020 Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcp2657R Appellant/अपीलाथ" .. Respondent/"ितवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

respect of share capital received from those not make any addition in respect of share capital received from those subscribers but made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of but made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of but made addition u/s 68 ... parties were not opinion based on surmises and conjectures. Merely because the parties were not produced before the AO, he cannot make the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This produced before the AO, he cannot make the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This produced before

Reena Kumari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequences to follow

ITA 752/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Reena Kumari, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-435, First Floor, Ward-54(4), Defence Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024. Pan: Abcps0078F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Ahuja, Ca & Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CA &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

surrounding the transaction and after taking into consideration the general principles of tainted transactions in penny stocks and scheme of LTCG, made the addition u/s 68 of the Act in regard to the returns holding that the LTCG transaction was not genuine and was a sham transaction. The AO held ... Sunstar Realty Development Limited (“SRDL”) 1,81,75,146/- 2. 4.1 Ld. AR has submitted that the Revenue authorities have made the addition u/s 68 of the Act invoking the principle of human probabilities and suspicious surrounding only and on the basis of weak financials of these companies, SEBI Proceedings

Rajkumari Ashok Thakur, Palghar vs. CIT Appeal, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3589/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Nfac, Delhi Rajkumari Ashok Thakur Vaishali Deshi Bar Juna Palghar, Near St Depot, Maharashtra – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Akwpt9344C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

well. Now before me the assessee has challenged those additions by raising different grounds of appeal. The breakup of additions u/s 68 of the Act are with regard to ‘income from agriculture’. Under this head the assessee had disclosed agriculture sales of Rs. 11,73,715/- but AO adopted ... exemption u/s 10(1) of the Act as has been held in the case of IC Pahuja (167 taxmann.com 41 Delhi) therefore no addition u/s 68 of the Act could have been made. It was further ignored by AO that similar agricultural income has been accepted in the case

DCIT Circle-43(1), New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

instant case and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we find that there is no case for making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee by denying the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act for the LTCG on sale

DCIT, Circle-43(1), New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1218/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Ms Ekom Exim Private Limited, Sco-11, Sector-4D, Battan Lal Road, Gt Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. The Jurisdictional Officer ACIT, DCIT Centre Circle Patiala, Punjab

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on denovo basis

ITA 425/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Dt. 05/10/2023 Passed In 1St Appeal No. 10596/Rot/Patiala/It/Cit(A)-5 Ldh/2019-20 Pased Under Section 250(6) Of The Act By Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2019 Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of Ld. Ao Ward-2, Mandi, Govindgarh, Head Quarter, Sirhind Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed As Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 68

erred in confirming the following additions as made by the Assessing Officer:- a). That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the addition u/s 68 In respect of cash deposits in the bank account to the tune of Rs. 10.06.74,230/-. b). That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred ... documents as per para 6 amounting to Rs. 9,39,82,823/-. d). That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the addition u/s 68 on the basis of cash found during the course of search amounting to Rs. 4,10,000/-. e). That the Ld. Assessing Officer

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Jaipur vs. Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 173/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. In view of the above, addition u/s 68 of the Act was justified. 3. Further, the primary onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the share application money received

ITO Ward 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Malvika Herbopharma Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4594/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mrs. Suby Srivastava

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 68

deleted the addition on merit observing as under: “(iv) The provisions relied upon by A.O. to prove source of the source for making addition u/s 68 were not applicable for A.Y. 15-16: I have considered this ground taken by appellant, and as submitted by it that, under the amended ... hence additions are to be deleted on this ground. It is irrespective of the fact that on this ground taken on merit also addition u/s 68 is not sustainable in the case in the light of decision given in the cases prior to amendment are still valid

Jasmine Buildmart (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1624/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

period relevant to the assessment year just leaving a balance of Rs 25 lakhs. Thus, no cash credit for this period, no addition u/s 68 of the Act could be made which has been made without examination of the information on his record in the original assessment proceedings where

Jasmine Buildmart (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1623/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Jasmine Buildmart (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Cirle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1610/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Nagpal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

parties with whom cash transactions have been made; then considering the cash sales as bogus shall not stand the test of law. Addition u/s 68 As regards, the addition of Rs. 1,46,84,779/- u/s 68 and invoking the provision of section 115BBE is concerned, the order ... record. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The assessing officer made the addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into

Deepak Srivastava, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 1328/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1328/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Sh. Deepak Srivastava, Income Tax Officer 1404, Tower-16, Orchid Petals, Vs. Ward-30(5), Sector-49, Gurgaon, Civic Centre, Haryana. Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2Section 250Section 251Section 44ASection 68

absence of any books of account being maintained, being not required u/s 44AA of the Act, the AO was not correct in making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Ld. Counsel submits that the question of treating the credits in the bank statement in the absence of any books ... same does not include bank passbook or bank statement. A conjoint reading of above provisions would thus leave to the conclusion that the addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made only where any amount is found credited in the books as defined u/s

Ikbalbhai Abdulgani Pocha, Shahera, Panchmahal, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Godhra, Income Tax Office, Civil Line Godhra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

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

National Faceless Appal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) Addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.25,26,619/- on account of capital introduction in his proprietorship concern M/s. Sugi Petroleum: On facts

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 863/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

challenged the impugned order there by submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act an amount of Rs. 3,31,46,778/- and further committing wrong by giving direction of deletion

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

total Income of the assessee. Since, an addition of Rs 6,80,48,500/- has already been made u/s 56(2)(viib) the addition u/s 68 of the Act is restricted to Rs.29,51,500/- In case for any reason/at any stage the addition u/s 56 is reduced then there ... will be corresponding increase in the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 8 Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 9. The ld. CIT (A) too has confirmed both the additions on the same reasoning given by the ld. AO. 10. We have heard both the parties at length and also perused

Jayantilal Panachand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 627/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

reproduced hereunder: 7. In the light of facts and circumstances narrated above, I hold that the Assessing Officer has erred in not making addition u/s 68 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act from a penny stock scrip ... revenue. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is set aside and the A.O. is directed to pass fresh assessment order by making addition u/s 68 rws 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs.1,02,18,9807- (or to the extent of bogus LTCG claimed exempt u/s

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Jkj Jewellers (Hcm), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 143Section 68

placed on record in the instant case, the assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The AO made the addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look ... then it is not open to the ld. AO to pick a figure of cash sales and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act without rejecting the books of accounts as it would amount to double taxation of the same amount. In defense of his arguments