“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

Guddu Kanwar, Rajasthan, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 3, Sikar, Rajasthan

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

ITA 190/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 68

dated 26/12/2023 passed u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), sustaining total addition of Rs. 99,77,419/- (addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE Rs. 47,52,922 + addition as Income from other sources Rs. 52,24,497) is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable and liable ... u/s 144 of the I.T. Act without providing to the assessee opportunity of being heard and thereafter further erred in sustaining addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act of Rs 47,52,922 (addition of Rs. 22,43,425 being opening cash balance on the first

Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcompact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3621P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

facts and circumstances of the instant case. 12. We find that the ld. AO had also made one more addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of loan received in the sum of Rs 1.50 crores from Vvian Construction Private Limited. Since the entire reassessment proceedings have been quashed ... hereinabove, the adjudication of the addition u/s 68 of the Act on merits in respect of Rs 1.50 crores would be academic in nature and hence it is left open. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/04/2024. - - (SAKTIJIT

Warm Forgings P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1148/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1148/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Warm Forgings P. Ltd., Dcit Plot No.117 & 118, A-3, Vs. Circle 27(1), Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcc7684C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

escaped the assessment due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. While here is a case where Ld. AO intends to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act, for any sum found credited in the books, by rebutting the explanation given by the assessee u/s 68 ... query raised by the AO, but the AO did not agree with the explanation given by the assessee and finally made the addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 25 lacs as discussed in para 15 of the assessment order and completed the assessment at Rs.28,23,720/- u/s

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 212/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.212/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.9/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.212/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Rejecting assessee’s explanations and relying on the seized material coupled with sworn statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu, Ld. AO made impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. 9. It is a fact on record that the statement made by Shri K. Srinivasulu was retracted by vide letters dated

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 211/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.8/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.211/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)

Windlas Jewellers, Ambala, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5648/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd. observed that assessee had failed to give plausible explanation regarding the alleged accommodation entries and accordingly made addition u/s 68 to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2.6 Lastly, learned AO made addition to the income of the assessee as inferred from the material seized ... without there being any specific inquiry and evidences merely on the general statement of Aseem Gupta, it was not justified to make the addition u/s 68 when otherwise with regard to identity and credibility of the investing companies, the assessee had provided substantial evidences. The findings of learned

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

Sritherumalleshwara Co-Operative Society, Chitradurga vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

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

ITA 187/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

observing that the impugned amount should be treated as income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act., however the AO made addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has satisfied the requirement of section 69A of the Act and the AO did not give further opportunity ... assessee for addition u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed the details of list of depositors and loanees who made cash deposits. The AO accepted that it was money deposited by the members and noted that the assessee had brought the entries

Jmk Exports, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, New Delhi

ITA 1428/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey []

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 68Section 69

Members. In the facts of the present appeal, learned Accountant Member has given a clear cut finding that no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made. Whereas, learned Judicial Member has returned a finding that the addition has to be made u/s. 69 of the Act. In other

M/S. Brahmi Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1048/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri GS Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT

Section 115BSection 68Section 80P

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

appellant and the assessment order of the AO. This ground of appeal is consequential to the main ground of the appeal regarding addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of exempt LTCG claim. As ground no.2 has been decided in favour of the appellant, this ground is also decided

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2484/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred both on facts 35 A.Y. 2014-15 Ajay Shankarlal Bankda and in law in upholding the AO’s action of making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the LTCG on sale of shares of M/s Alpha Graphics Ltd alleging it to be bogus. We therefore direct

Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sachin Velji Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2044/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri_Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Ziauddin A Siddique (supra), Mukesh R Marolia (supra) & Jamna Devi Agarwal (supra), we uphold the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act, in relation to the proceeds derived on sale of shares of M/s Mahavir Advanced Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging it to be bogus

Gayatri Sewa Sansthan, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3958/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 68

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide order dated 20.02.2015. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment, made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans and interest from M/s. Baldev Promoters Pvt.Ltd. and assessed the income

Gayatri Sewa Sansthan, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3957/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S. Gayatri Sewa Sansthan, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5802/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S. Gayatri Sewa Sansthan, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1927/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 68

Onkar Parivahan Finance Private Limited, Kolkata Burrabazar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(2), Kolkata, Chowringhee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Onkar Parivahan Finance Private Dcit, Circle-9(2), Limited Kolkata Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

share applicants were filed before the ld. CIT(A). The above submitted documents proved all the three ingredients has proved to avoid addition u/s 68 viz. identity, genuinity and creditworthiness of shareholders. In the instant case of assessee all the shareholders are income tax assessee, share applications have been received

Onkar Parivahan Finance Private Limited, Kolkata Burrabazar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(2), Kolkata, Kolkata Chowringhee Square

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 792/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Onkar Parivahan Finance Private Dcit, Circle-9(2), Limited Kolkata Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68