Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

558 results for “section 68”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,542 Delhi3,254 Kolkata1,515 Ahmedabad894 Chennai808 Jaipur723 Bangalore558 Surat513 Hyderabad491 Indore354 Chandigarh344 Pune341 Rajkot238 Cochin214 Raipur200 Visakhapatnam172 Nagpur153 Amritsar124 Lucknow120 Guwahati103 Agra84 Calcutta77 Cuttack73 Allahabad62 Patna55 Jodhpur52 Panaji42 Ranchi37 Dehradun31 Jabalpur25 Karnataka21 Telangana16 Varanasi14 SC9 Rajasthan4 Gauhati2 Orissa1 Kerala1 Punjab & Haryana1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 68143 Addition to Income93 Section 153A56 Section 14846 Section 143(3)43 Section 13242 Cash Deposit42 Unexplained Cash Credit30 Section 25028 Section 133A

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

ITA 135/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veera Raghavan, D.R

Section 147Section 234ASection 68

unexplained cash credits within the meaning provided in Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he concluded that the action of AO to be upheld

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 558 · Page 1 of 28

...

28

Demonetization21

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 68

68 of the IT Act, 1961. In this case, the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of cash credits made during the month of ' Nov.]6 and thereby unexplained cash credits were added as Income by the assessing officer by invoking the section

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. “Section 68 - Cash credits: "Where any sum is found credited in the books

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

unexplained cash entries on 2/10/2007, 3/10/2008. 7/10/2007, 14/10/2007, etc. and made up his accounts. This is further substantiated by the fact that the opening balance as per both the cash book as on 1/10/2007 is the same. As these are related to cash credits and cash payments, which have been paid to various persons in cash within the month

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

unexplained cash entries on 2/10/2007, 3/10/2008. 7/10/2007, 14/10/2007, etc. and made up his accounts. This is further substantiated by the fact that the opening balance as per both the cash book as on 1/10/2007 is the same. As these are related to cash credits and cash payments, which have been paid to various persons in cash within the month

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

unexplained cash entries on 2/10/2007, 3/10/2008. 7/10/2007, 14/10/2007, etc. and made up his accounts. This is further substantiated by the fact that the opening balance as per both the cash book as on 1/10/2007 is the same. As these are related to cash credits and cash payments, which have been paid to various persons in cash within the month

ARJUN SHETTY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TPS, CIRCLE - 1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 68 of the Act, it cannot be said to be an unexplained cash credit. The fictitious cash entry in the bank

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1619/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1621/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1622/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1623/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

cash credit/ unexplained money for being taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act having regard to the provisions of section 68

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 837/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

cash credit/ unexplained money for being taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act having regard to the provisions of section 68

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

unexplained, especially when it is backed by verifiable records and cash books. 20.5 Further, reliance placed by the AO on section 68 of the Act is misplaced. In our considered view the provision of section 68 of the Act is invoked only when the source of credit

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT (Appeals

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth GS, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

unexplained cash credits under section 68, in the light of evidence brought on record. The issue is being discussed, in the light

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

ITA 1104/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri k.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

68,859 in view of (i) protective addition of Rs.8,65,00,000 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

CHETANA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 , DAVANEGERE

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

ITA 912/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 68

68 of the Income tax Act and has set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 22. Thus, treating cash deposits as unexplained cash credit is totally erroneous. 23. Hence, the learned AO erroneous in law for treating the cash deposited during the demonetisation period as unexplained cash deposits under section

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest