“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

Enn Vee Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Coordinate Bench in case of M/s. Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "12. The Ld. A.O while making an addition u/s 68 of the Act raised question over the ne of the transaction source of funds invested. Further held that, the investor companies do not have

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 271/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 153CSection 69B

Abdul Khader Hindustan Bawa Search Search Remarks Kodi Builders Material in material in Issue Issue Abdul Khader Hindustan Bawa Kodi Addition u/s 68 Addition on account A/AKK/1 A/AKK/1 ITAT deleted & of sale A/AKK/2, Page 6 of AO the 69 consideration page no 9 to 19 A/AKK/2 page 7 addition ... 4AbduI Khader Hindustan Bawa Search Material in Remarks Kodi Builders Abdul Khader Kodi Search material in Issue Issue Hindustan Bawa Addition u/s 68 & Addition on A/AKWI NAKK/I ITAT deleted the 69 account of sale A/AKK/2, page no Page 6 of AO addition by 9 to 19 of assessment consideration rejecting

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 270/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 153CSection 69B

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 153CSection 69B

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 268/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 153CSection 69B

M/S. Vinodhini Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2658/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Amandhon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2658 /Chny/2019 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Vinodhini Hospitality P. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Trimex Towers, No.1, Subbaraya Corporate Circle-3(2), Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Vs. Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccv-7174-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

framed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 06-03-2015. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain addition u/s 68 as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee being a corporate ... been created against Rakindo in the financial statements. This being the case, no case could be made out against the assessee to make additions u/s 68. Therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting the same. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ

Durga Fire Work, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(8), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.383/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Durga Fire Work Ito, C/O Sh. S.K. Gambhir, Adv., Vs. Ward-59(8), 429 3Rd Floor, Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaafd3178Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 69A

account were not rejected and the sales of the assessee have not been disturbed the Revenue authorities are precluded from making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period. 20. In view of the above discussion

Jayved Agro Improve Pvt. Ltd., Banaskantha vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle (Previously the DCIT, Bk Circle, Palanpur), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 988/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271

dismissed, and the addition of the Assessing Officer is confirmed. 5.6 Second ground is addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as share capital addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant did not submit any details and hence the Assessing Officer made the addition. 5.7 Now before

L B Saree Emporium, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

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

regularly assessed to tax leaves no doubt regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with this cash creditor and thus no addition u/s 68 of the Act is called for. 9(e). Sharda Devi Sarawgi- Rs.5,00,000/- We note that details have been filed at pages ... Since neither the identity is in dispute nor genuineness of transaction is doubtful and creditworthiness of the cash creditor is proved beyond doubt, addition u/s 68 of the Act is uncalled for. 9(g). Zori Varieties -Rs.25,00,000/- We observe that the details filed at pages

Florence Dealer Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 837/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

Assessing Officer did not point out any defect, discrepancy or infirmity in the evidences furnished by the assessee and made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act in a mechanical manner. 3.2 The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned order

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

copy of the statement was provided to the assessee and the assessment proceedings continued culminating into conclusion of assessment proceedings on 29.03.2022 making addition u/s 68 of the amounts received from M/s Grand Realcon Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted ... That alleged non-compliance to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act is not a relevant criterion to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act That alleged meagre income alone cannot be a ground to reject the genuineness of transaction or creditworthiness of the M/s Grand Realcon

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

M/S. Gordhansingh S Rajpurohit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 512/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

ACIT 8(3) v/s Tristar Jewllery, & 6435/Mum/2013 dt 31/04/2015.  ACIT 25(2) v/s Tarla R Shah ITA No 5295/Mum/2013 dt 02/02/2016. GOA No.3 :- Addition u/s 68 of Unsecured Loan of Rs5,60,000/-  The Ld. AO erred in disallowing loan of Rs5,60,000/- and the same is confirmed ... brought forward loan and no new loan has been taken during the year. GOA No 4 :- Addition u/s 68 of Sundry Creditors of Rs92,81,370/-  The Ld AO erred in disallowing the entire Sundry Creditors u/s 68 and the same is confirmed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.76/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Kumar Ward 9(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aqppk9880P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR

Section 68

ITA No 76 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Kumar आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

Rs.21,00,000/- was deposited out of day to day cash sales. The appellant submitted that there was no justification to make addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash sales recorded in books of accounts. The Ld. AR also questioned retrospective applicability of section 115BBE

Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 856/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Ashok Chandrabhan V The Income Tax Officer, Khandave, S Ward-3(1), Nashik. At Post Village Pimpalnare, Dindori, Nashik, Maharashtra – 422004. Panl: Daqpk6919D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ganesh Budruk – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac], U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 23.02.2024.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,06,000Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 10,06,000 Made By The A.O. Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits In Bank Account During Demonetization Period Without Appreciating That The Said Cash Deposits Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A]

Section 250Section 68

that the Cash has been deposited in the Bank account of the assessee from Sale of Agricultural produce. However, the AO made the addition u/s 68 3 Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A] of Rs.10,06,000/- treating the claim of the assessee as a colorable device. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed

Ponny Retails Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Circle 1 Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 930/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee failed to provide the details called for during the assessment proceedings and AO completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.3,70,24,475/- and raised a demand of Rs.6,87,13,820/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 69A

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 ... 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

ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Diamond Tradex Co. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6167/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 68

justify the share premium and further the investor companies also did not have financials so strong to invest in the assessee company. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 of the Act was made. 2.1 Further, AO observed that assessee had shown advances from customers of Rs. 3,68,63,089/- against ... parties from whom advance is received as on 3 31.03.2012. Thus considering this to be assessee’s own unaccounted money, made addition u/s 68. 3. In appeal the additions were deleted by learned CIT(A) with relevant findings in paras 2.2 & 3.2 and for the convenience, the same are reproduced