Section 68 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.102

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 102 (Unexplained credits) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 102 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 68 is Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399), cited in 2,379 of the 29,931 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 68

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

Judgments on Section 68

Deepmala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2019/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deepmala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd……………………………………….…….……Appellant 6Th Floor, 40/3, Strand Road, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabcd9197P] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata..………………………..………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.07.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Return Of Income 2. For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.42,222/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Company Issued Its Shares To Different Private Companies Against High Premium. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & The Assessee Company Appeared & Submitted Various Details. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Adding Rs.6,90,45,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act. Deepmala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Passing An Ex Parte Order As There Was No Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

DCIT, Circle1(1), Kolkata vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1724/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

M/S. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1193/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Raviraj Varadharaj, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw 8(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 2468/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2468/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No. 85/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2468/Chny/2025] Raviraj Varadharaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16/08, Duraisamy Colony, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Amopv6065A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Swaminathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Ground No. A, Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 68