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.

744 results for “section 68”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,658 Delhi3,314 Kolkata1,559 Ahmedabad901 Chennai847 Jaipur744 Bangalore580 Surat522 Hyderabad511 Indore373 Pune344 Chandigarh344 Rajkot261 Cochin214 Raipur200 Visakhapatnam181 Nagpur169 Lucknow125 Amritsar123 Guwahati103 Agra90 Calcutta77 Cuttack73 Allahabad62 Patna57 Jodhpur54 Panaji42 Ranchi40 Dehradun31 Jabalpur25 Karnataka21 Telangana16 Varanasi14 SC9 Rajasthan4 Gauhati2 Punjab & Haryana1 Orissa1 Kerala1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 68109 Addition to Income89 Section 143(3)71 Section 153A52 Section 14734 Section 14833 Section 13232 Section 69A29 Section 133A28 Cash Deposit

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the\nAct after disregarding the other evidences submitted by the assessee during the\ncourse

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 744 · Page 1 of 38

...

24

Search & Seizure24

Demonetization15

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credits in its books of accounts which was shown in the grab of cash sales and so is to be added to the total income of assessee u/s 68 of the Act and taxed it @ 60% invoking provisions of section

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.\nThe Tribunal observed that the provisions of section 68 of the Act can be attracted

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

unexplained received will be liable to be taxed under section 69 despite of the acceptance the fact loans have been received by such assessee. Alternatively such credite (loans received) Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT will be liable to be taxed under section 68. Whereas in the present case the transactions have been done in unaccounted cash

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

unexplained received will be liable to be taxed under section 69 despite of the acceptance the fact loans have been received by such assessee. Alternatively such credite (loans received) Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT will be liable to be taxed under section 68. Whereas in the present case the transactions have been done in unaccounted cash

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

unexplained received will be liable to be taxed under section 69 despite of the acceptance the fact loans have been received by such assessee. Alternatively such credite (loans received) Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT will be liable to be taxed under section 68. Whereas in the present case the transactions have been done in unaccounted cash

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

unexplained received will be liable to be taxed under section 69 despite of the acceptance the fact loans have been received by such assessee. Alternatively such credite (loans received) Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT will be liable to be taxed under section 68. Whereas in the present case the transactions have been done in unaccounted cash

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

unexplained received will be liable to be taxed under section 69 despite of the acceptance the fact loans have been received by such assessee. Alternatively such credite (loans received) Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT will be liable to be taxed under section 68. Whereas in the present case the transactions have been done in unaccounted cash

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The cash credited in the name of sale is treated as unexplained credits in the books of accounts of the appellant. Therefore, the addition is made as proposed in the show cause notice u/s 68

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6,26,68,011 2. Against the assessment order, the Appellant

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6,26,68,011 2. Against the assessment order, the Appellant

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nSh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

unexplained credit under section 68 in the hands of the appellant is\njustifiable with reference to explanation of the appellant with regard to credits on\naccount of sale of gold bars. There is no, and there cannot be any, dispute on the\nfundamental legal position that the onus is on the appellant to prove 'bonafides' or\n'genuineness' of cash

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,52,39,151/- by treating the same as unexplained cash credits

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,52,39,151/- by treating the same as unexplained cash credits

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

unexplained credit under section 68. When anassessee sold bullion in cash and the same cash had introduced in books then

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

section 68: The onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and it failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,26,72,500/- which is cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization is considered as unexplained cash credits

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 628/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

section 68 as unexplained cash credits taxed under section 68 cannot be pegged to any head of income. [Para 18]” The fact

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit Commissioner (Appeals as well as Tribunal held that once addition was made on estimate basis under section 44AD, no separate addition could be made in respect of cash credit under section 68

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit Commissioner (Appeals as well as Tribunal held that once addition was made on estimate basis under section 44AD, no separate addition could be made in respect of cash credit under section 68

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

credited in the books. Therefore, provisions of section 68 are attracted here. 5. Applicability of section 68: The onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and it failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,78,08,630/- which is cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization is considered as unexplained