“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

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax-4 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. S P Jain Securities Pvt Ltd, Fort

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68

case, the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC is right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,75,483/- wherein AO had made addition u/s 68 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC is right in deleting the disallowance

Atul Savailal Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 3055/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalatul Savailal Shah, Vs. Ac I T- 42(1)(1), 202, Deepak Residency, Kautilya Bhavan, Bhogilal Phodia Road, Bkc, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No.Aadps2427C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 50C

rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in partly sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loans though the assesses has filed the requisite details before the lower authorities. We find in the assessment proceedings

Ravinder Baweja, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

ITA 1731/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rikky Dua, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)

That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the finding of AO whereby he has made Addition u/s 68 which is wrong as under income tax act Section 68 talks about "Cash Credits" 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books

Ravinder Baweja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-27 Jhandewalan Extn, Nes Delhi, Delhi

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

ITA 1730/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rikky Dua, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)

Godwin Tourism Pvt Ltd, Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle, New Delhi

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

ITA 2786/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

appellant. On the totality of facts, where the A.O. has neither doubted the identity nor the creditworthiness of the lender, the addition u/s 68 of the loan from him is totally unlawful & illegal and therefore the same kindly be deleted. For the remaining loans of Rs.1,00,000/- from

Ravinder Baweja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(2), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

ITA 2254/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rikky Dua, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)

Decent Industries P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

amount on account of share capital at a premium of Rs.790/- per share of Rs. 10/- each. The AO proposed to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act on the basis that search and survey action was carried out in the case of one Shri Anand Sharma, Kolkata ... have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant materials available on record. The AO has proceeded to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received by the assessee from M/s. Abhishek Advisory Pvt. Ltd. by referring to the search and survey

Goldendunes Homes LLP, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 603/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

shell company as declared by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘’SFIO’’) and on the basis of this findings the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. At the very outset, the ld. AR of the assessee placed on record judgement / order of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT wherein similar additions ... taken loan from M/s. GCPL and the said loan was also held to be non-genuine by the AO and thus he made addition u/s 68 of the Act. However, subsequently the ld CIT(A) after appreciating the background of M/s. GCPL deleted the addition made by the AO. Thereafter

Manohar Lal Chugh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 505/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

appellant with circumstantial evidences the Ld. A/R filed all possible documentary evidences in his possession. It is clear that AO has based his addition u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of statement of the entry operator and information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. However

Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakara Sanga Niyamita Mantur, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1216/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 68Section 69

books of account, it was held that when Assessee already admitted sale proceeds as revenue receipts . Therefore there is no case of addition u/s 68" . Page 5 of 6 10. In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that the SBN deposited

Sunil Sumermal Bhutoria HUF, Goregaon Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Bkc Bandra East

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Sumermal Bhutoria Huf Ito-31(3)940, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 224, Yugdharma, Link Road, Bandra East, Vs. Opp. Inorbit Mall, Goregaon Maharashtra West Maharashtra-400090. Pan: Aauhs 0957 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh JainFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, SR. DR

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer could not have made any other addition other than the issue for which assessment is reopened. Even on this ground, the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 12,13,150/- deserves to be deleted. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Vaibhav Pankaj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 35ASection 68

against verbal claim, but the assessee failed in doing so. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition u/s 68 of the Act following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Arunkumar J Muchhala

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai vs. Shipra Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 2901/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Shipra Developers Pvt. Ltd., 209, Aayakar Bhavan, G-2, Flat No. 101 A Wing, M.K. Road, Vs. Beach Square, Dr. A.B. Nair Mumbai-400020. Road, Juhu Vile Parele (W), Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aaics 7124 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Asif Karmali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody

Section 132Section 68

justice, case and in the interest of justice, we feel it appropriate to restore we feel it appropriate to restore the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act addition u/s 68 of the Act to the file of the Assessing to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification

Presha Metallurgical Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4) Now Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 843/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Date on which AO passed the 26-03-2015 08-03-2016 14-11-2019 order u/s 143(3) - - - Nature of Addition u/s Addition u/s 68 - Addition u/s Addition 68 amounting to 68 amounting by AO amounting to Rs. to Rs. 43Cr

Presha Metallurgical Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Baroda Now ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 770/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Presha Metallurgical Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Baroda Now ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 769/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1342/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

companies in respect of which no admission was made filed their confirmation. In spite of all these facts, the AO made the addition u/s 68 for the reason that since in original statement, the director has admitted for some of the companies and for all the years and accordingly offered

Saba Hussan Ansari, Bhopal vs. DCIT 2(1) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Saba Hussan Ansari, Dcit 110/5, Badwai, 2(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ebxpa6463D Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

assessee received funds for making investment in purchase of immovable property) submitted by assessee to AO against draft assessment-order and made addition u/s 68. Further, the AO has also made addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) without giving proper opportunity to assessee. He submitted that the matter needs

Kapil Alcotech LLP, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

inadvertent error. He further submitted that the turnover has been shown more in the ITR and therefore there is no case for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Since the requisite conditions for invoking provisions of section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 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 tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case