“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

Shri Mufiz Burhamuddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41Section 68

erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 68 of Rs. 23,50,000/-. 7. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amends, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” Ground No. 2:- Disallowance under Section

Class Commercial (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-3, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/KOL/2023[2011-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2024AY 2011-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263Section 68

clear that the assessee has received Rs. 5,00,000/- from Vinayak Textiles. Therefore this is the business / commercial transaction and therefore addition u/s 68 cannot be made to the income of the assessee and as a result the appellate order cannot be sustained. Accordingly we are inclined

Arvind Kumar Nehra, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

ITA 32/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain,AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 144Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

Golechas Jewels, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 600/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 254Section 68

GOLECHA JEWELS, JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR ITA NO. 600/JP/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES

M/S. Bhagavathi Chits Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 18/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT

Section 41(1)Section 68

against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) order dated 24/11/2023. The AO passed asst. order on 28/12/2019 and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.1,29,00,000/-, disallowance of bad debts of Rs.39,35,042./- and disallowance u/s 41(1) of Rs.72

Rohit Devendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3704/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

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

Credits. The disallowance u/s 69C of the Act made on account of commission for obtaining LTCG entry amounting to Rs.2,49,281/- The addition U/s 68 of Rs.75,00,000/- being loan taken from the M/s Unno Industries Ltd which was treated as bogus loan Disallowance of interest ... accommodation transactions and that the shares of the company abnormally increased during the year under consideration which cannot be sole reasons to sustain additions u/s 68. The Ld. A.O has not brought anything on record to disprove/refute the genuniness of the evidences furnished by the Assessee herein

M/S. Swaviman Services Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 773/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Swaviman Services Private Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs 12(2), Kolkata Limited 84, Panchanantal Road 2Nd Floor, Block-A Flat No. 204 Liluah Howrah - 711204 [Pan : Aadcs5897D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27/12/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Ex-Parte & Assessee Also Failed To Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Impugned Additions Are On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Share Premium. Referring To The Audited Balance Sheet, He Submitted That The Assessee Has Not Received Any Share Capital & Share Premium During The Year. However, Since The Assessee Did Not Appear Before The Lower Authorities, An Opportunity May Be Granted To Furnish Necessary Details To Prove That No Fresh Share Capital & Share

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

share I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Swaviman Services Private Limited 2 premium was received during the year and, therefore, no addition u/s 68 of the Act is called for. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities ... have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The addition u/s 68 of the Act is in challenged before us which is made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.1,57,00,000/-. The assessee is a private limited company

DCIT Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore vs. Navaratna Maaligai, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 801/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 48/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Navaratna Maaligai, Income Tax, V. No. 362, Raja Street, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 001. Aayakar Bhavan, [Pan: Aaifn-6257-E] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate

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

ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore vs. M/S Surabii Gold, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 372/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Surabii Gold, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), V. 138, Karuppa Gounder Street, Aayakar Bhavan, K G Street, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Abufs-6503-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

JCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Tara Jewellery, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 276/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 276/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Tara Jewellery, Income-Tax, V. 61, West Bashyakaralu Road, Non-Corporate Circle -2, R S Puram, Aayakar Bhavan, Coimbatore – 641 002. 63, Race Course Road, [Pan: Aagft-2345-B] Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 68Section 69A

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 :-24-: ITA. No: 276/Chny/2023 was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard

Uppinakere Shivalingaish Mangalesh, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagara

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 17/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

entire submission in his order and after discussing the issue in detail and relying on the circulars/notifications issued regarding demonetization the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.53,10,500/- and completed the assessment on 20//12/2019. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal