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.

2,805 results for “section 68”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,435 Mumbai2,805 Kolkata929 Chennai868 Ahmedabad845 Jaipur775 Bangalore724 Hyderabad586 Chandigarh376 Pune374 Indore308 Surat303 Rajkot234 Visakhapatnam223 Cochin207 Nagpur145 Raipur140 Lucknow131 Amritsar122 Karnataka121 Cuttack89 Agra79 Patna65 Jodhpur61 Allahabad61 Guwahati59 Calcutta48 Panaji48 Jabalpur33 Dehradun32 Telangana27 Varanasi23 Ranchi18 SC14 Rajasthan6 Orissa2 Punjab & Haryana2 Gauhati2 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 68120 Addition to Income78 Section 143(3)64 Section 14741 Section 25033 Disallowance31 Section 14826 Cash Deposit25 Section 153A23 Unexplained Cash Credit

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

68, read with section 153A, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit\n(Unexplained cash deposits) - Assessment\nyear 2017-18 Certain

BINA GOENKA THE JEWELLER LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 2,805 · Page 1 of 141

...

21

Section 143(2)20

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 737/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bina Goenka The Jeweller Llp, Asst. Cit Circle-25(2), 501 Kings Apartments, Juhu 220, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Between Jw Mariot & Tulip Vs. To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Star, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapfb 7501 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Siddharth Kothari

Section 133(6)

deposits of unexplained cash credit unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the A in terms of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 without appreciating the fact that the appellant had submitted all the documentary evidences such as sale register, cash sale memos, Stock statement, audited cashbook and bank statement Indicating the source of Cash Deposited. Hence all the condition relating to section

AVINASH NARAYAN SUTAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit being 30% of cash deposited in the bank accounts held by the appellant. 2. The Appellant craves to add, alter or delete all or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal. ITA No. 1029, 1030, 1031& 1321/Mum/2020 M/s. Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai. 15. The brief facts

P V MEDIA VISION PVT. LTD ,LOWER PAREL MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5036/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

deposits originated from cash sales, debtor recoveries, and prior cash withdrawals, with no link established by the AO between withdrawals and alternative uses. Jurisprudence, including cases like Vijay Dashrath Gupta and Veena Awasthi, supports a presumption in favor of the assessee when cash availability is established. In summary, the addition of Rs.4.74 crore under Section 68

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. PV MEDIA VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5337/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

deposits originated from cash sales, debtor recoveries, and prior cash withdrawals, with no link established by the AO between withdrawals and alternative uses. Jurisprudence, including cases like Vijay Dashrath Gupta and Veena Awasthi, supports a presumption in favor of the assessee when cash availability is established. In summary, the addition of Rs.4.74 crore under Section 68

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit\ntransactions but excluding the remote deposits.\n3.1. The CIT(A) erred

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit\ntransactions but excluding the remote deposits.\n3.1. The CIT(A) erred

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit\ntransactions but excluding the remote deposits.\n3.1. The CIT(A) erred

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit\ntransactions but excluding the remote deposits.\n\n3.1. The CIT(A) erred

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit in Ba of the Act on account of cash deposit

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3132/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hari S. Raheja

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit in Ba of the Act on account of cash deposit

ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2504/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68

68. The ‘prepondness of probabilities’in the presence of direct evidence in the form of books of account is unjustified. There is no material on record to support the allegation that cash deposit represents unaccounted income and deleted the addition of cash deposit. 9. On the addition/disallowance under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2530/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68

68. The ‘prepondness of probabilities’in the presence of direct evidence in the form of books of account is unjustified. There is no material on record to support the allegation that cash deposit represents unaccounted income and deleted the addition of cash deposit. 9. On the addition/disallowance under section

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7218/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 69A

68. While Hitendra C. Ghadia ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/ , Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited in was deposited

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 616/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 69A

68. While Hitendra C. Ghadia ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/ , Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited in was deposited

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7219/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 69A

68. While Hitendra C. Ghadia ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/ , Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited in was deposited

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4863/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

deposited\nduring the demonetization period out of the cash available in books\nof accounts. But the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the\nassessee and in the assessment order passed under section 143(3)\nof the made addition of ₹2,58,78,235/- as unexplained cash credit\nunder section 68

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAKAR BHAVAN vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4851/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

deposited\nduring the demonetization period out of the cash available in books\nof accounts. But the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the\nassessee and in the assessment order passed under section 143(3)\nof the made addition of ₹2,58,78,235/- as unexplained cash credit\nunder section 68

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. FOODLINK SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4854/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 68

deposited\nduring the demonetization period out of the cash available in books\nof accounts. But the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the\nassessee and in the assessment order passed under section 143(3)\nof the made addition of ₹2,58,78,235/- as unexplained cash credit\nunder section 68