Section 115BBE

Section 115BBE — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 115BBE, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Deepak Maratha v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My demonetisation cash deposit was added for the year ended 31 March 2017 and taxed at 60% under section 115BBE. Can that rate reach income of that year?
  The Rajasthan High Court held that it cannot. The rate in section 115BBE was raised from 30% to 60% by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, which received assent on 15 December 2016 and came into force at once - but the amendment to section 115BBE(1) was separately expressed to take effect from 1 April 2017. The law applicable to an assessment year is the law in force on the first day of that year, and a change made after a financial year has begun cannot govern the tax liability for that year unless it is expressly made retrospective. Nothing in the 2016 Act says section 115BBE is retrospective. Doubling a rate alters existing rights and is not a procedural or clarificatory change. So for the financial year 2016-17 the law in force on 1 April 2016 governs, at 30%, and the 60% rate applies from the financial year 2017-18 onwards; section 271AAC, which depends on section 115BBE, is prospective in the same way.
• M/s Sivasakthi Threads v Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  A survey during a search on a connected group threw up excess stock, and it was added for AY 2007-08. The department says my unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against it, and now cites section 79A. Is that right?
  No, on both counts, for a year before AY 2022-23. The Madras High Court held that unabsorbed depreciation carried forward takes the character of current year depreciation under s.32(2) and, read with ss.71 and 72, can be set off against income of the current year other than capital gains — including an addition of unaccounted stock in business; and it recorded that s.79A, inserted by the Finance Act 2022 with effect from 1 April 2022, does not assist the Revenue for an earlier year.
• Ankit Agarwal v PCCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My 148A notice says I never filed a return, but I did. Is that enough to get it quashed?
  Yes, on these facts. The Patna High Court held that where the Insight Portal flag is contradicted by the Department's own records, the 'information which suggests' escapement is missing and the s.148A(b) notice, the s.148A(d) order, the s.148 notice and the demand all fall.
• PCIT v Smt Krishna Devi High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The Assessing Officer has added my long-term capital gain on a share whose price rose 4,849%, relying on the Investigation Wing's penny-stock report. Is the price rise by itself enough?
  No. The Delhi High Court accepted that the price movement and the company's financials were odd, and still refused to sustain the addition. The assessee had bought online, paid through a bank, held the shares in demat form and sold through the demat account with sale proceeds received by banking channel. The officer issued notices under ss.133(6)/131 to the company and to the entity that had paid for the shares; they produced nothing and came back unserved, and he then went no further. On that record the Court held the finding that there was an arrangement to convert unaccounted money was an assumption based on conjecture, and that suspicion is not proof. Read it with the contrary Calcutta line in PCIT v Swati Bajaj, which the library also carries.
• PCIT (Central), Jaipur v Aacharan Enterprises Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer has added cash credits under s.68 and refuses to let me set my business loss against them. Can he do that for my year?
  It depends entirely on the assessment year. The Rajasthan High Court held that the bar in s.115BBE(2) on setting off any loss against income referred to in ss.68 to 69D was introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1 April 2017 and cannot be applied retrospectively, so for assessment year 2014-15 the set-off was allowed. From assessment year 2017-18 the statute forecloses the set-off and this decision is no help to you.
• CIT v Chensing Ventures High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I surrendered unexplained cash payments as income at a survey and I also have a business loss for the same year. Can the officer refuse to set the loss off against the surrendered income?
  Not on the law as it then stood. The Madras High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The Assessing Officer had added Rs 28,50,000 as undisclosed income under section 69 and had allowed no set-off of the determined business loss of Rs 8,20,384 against it, giving no reason for the refusal. Section 71 permits a loss remaining after set-off within a head to be set off against income of the same year under any other head, capital gains apart. Income tax is one tax on total income, so once the loss is determined it must be set off against income determined under any other head.
• Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v CIT High CourtHelps department
  An unexplained investment has been added to my income under section 69A and the asset was then confiscated. Can I set the loss off against that addition?
  No. The Gujarat High Court held that income deemed under sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C falls under none of the heads in section 14, not even income from other sources, because those sections apply precisely where the source is unknown or unexplained. Since the deemed income cannot be classified under a head, the deductions that go with a head are not available against it. Gold worth Rs 48,72,000 found concealed in the assessee's car and confiscated by customs was rightly added under section 69A, and its confiscation could not be claimed as a trading loss.
• Hirabhai Karshanbhai Solanki v ITO, Rajkot ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  In a s.147 reassessment the Assessing Officer has thrown out my s.80U disability deduction along with 80C and 80TTA because I produced nothing during the assessment. Can I still prove it in appeal?
  Yes, on this order. The Rajkot Tribunal deleted the whole Chapter VI-A disallowance where the assessee produced LIC premium receipts and notified mutual fund receipts for s.80C, and for s.80U produced a disability certificate issued by the competent medical authority — the assessee also appearing personally before the Tribunal — holding that "such evidence cannot be ignored".
• Anilkumar Narayanrao Mudradattu v ITO ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Interest-free loans from family, and savings built up over decades. Does the department have to accept that?
  Largely, yes, on evidence. Genuineness cannot be doubted merely because the lenders are relatives, particularly where their own returns are produced. Of the Rs 9 lakh still in dispute before the Tribunal, Rs 8 lakh was deleted and Rs 1 lakh sustained.
• Arun Pratap Singh v ITO, New Delhi ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The Assessing Officer has disallowed my s.80GGC deduction and, on top of that, added five per cent of the donation under s.69C read with s.115BBE as commission I am presumed to have paid. Will the Tribunal delete at least the commission?
  Not necessarily. The Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding that where a search under s.132 on the recipient party produced sworn statements of the President and key office bearers admitting that donations received through banking channels were returned to donors in cash after deducting commission, the payment through NEFT and a valid donation receipt do not save the deduction. The order does not separately deal with the s.69C addition; it upholds the impugned order as a whole.
• Mohamed Asmi v ITO ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  I filed under s.44AD and the officer has still added my whole bank credit under s.69A. Doesn't the presumptive return protect me?
  Not by itself. The Tribunal held that s.44AD and s.69A operate in distinct fields, and that a presumptive return cannot regularise deposits whose source and genuineness the assessee cannot establish; the entire addition of Rs 7,10,37,643 was sustained.
• Muhammed Arif Shaikh v Asst. Unit, Income Tax Department ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  For one year the department accepted 8 per cent presumptive profit on my client's crypto sales; for the next year, on the same information, it has added the whole purchase figure under section 69C. Can it do that?
  Not on this decision. The Ahmedabad Bench held that where the same assessment unit had, for AY 2017-18, accepted a presumptive deemed profit at 8 per cent of the crypto sales, it could not for AY 2018-19 — reopened on the same common information and where the assessee had again offered 8 per cent of his crypto turnover, which the Assessing Officer accepted — go on to add the crypto purchases of Rs 17,52,838 as unexplained expenditure under s.69C. Taking inconsistent stands in the assessee's own case in two different assessment years was held not proper and against the provisions of law, and the addition was deleted.
• Krishnakumar Manda v DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The addition under the s.68 group has been confirmed and I never showed the income in my return. Is there any discretion left to the AO not to levy the s.271AAC penalty?
  On this decision, none. The Hyderabad Bench held that once income of the s.68 to s.69D kind is brought to tax and sustained, and the conditions of the proviso are not satisfied, the levy of the s.271AAC penalty is automatic and mandatory, and the language of the section leaves the AO no discretion.
• Shankar Lal Ludhani v DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I left the surrendered cash out of my original return and brought it in only by a revised return under s.139(5). Does the proviso to s.271AAC(1) still protect me?
  On this decision, yes. The Jaipur Bench held that once a revised return is filed the original stands withdrawn and is substituted by the revised return, so where the revised return has been accepted as a return under s.139 the proviso to s.271AAC(1) is answered and the penalty cannot stand.
• Rohit Khandelwal v AC/DCIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I disclosed the seized cash and paid the s.115BBE tax, but my return was a belated one under s.139(4). The AO says the proviso to s.271AAC(1) only saves a return under s.139(1). Is he right?
  No. The proviso says "return of income furnished under section 139" and does not confine itself to s.139(1); the Tribunal held that where the legislature meant a particular sub-section it said so, and deleted the penalty on a belated return filed under s.139(4).
• Jagdish Kumar Arora v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerJudgment not reachable
  You surrendered income in a survey. Is it taxed at 60% under s.115BBE, or at your normal rate?
  Where the source is your own business, at your normal rate. The deeming provisions only bite where the source is unexplained; unrecorded debtors from the business are explained, so s.115BBE was held not to apply.
• Bichitrananda Rout v ITO — specified bank notes added under s.69A although the rest of the turnover was taxed at eight per cent under s.44AD ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client returned his business income at eight per cent under s.44AD and says his old-note deposits came out of his opening cash. The officer has added the specified bank notes anyway. Can that stand?
  It can, and here it did. The Assessing Officer accepted the balance of the turnover and estimated income on it at eight per cent, but treated the specified bank notes of Rs 8,35,500 as unexplained under s.69A, and the Cuttack Bench confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal because the assessee produced a cash sales statement rather than a cash book, could not establish the actual cash in hand as on 1 November 2016, and could not explain from whom he had received demonetised notes after the appointed date.
• ACIT v Hirapanna Jewellers ITATHelps taxpayer
  My cash sales are already in my books and already in my turnover. The officer has added the same money again under section 68 and taxed it at 60%. Can he?
  Not on these facts. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs 4,71,31,500 made under section 68 read with section 115BBE on a jeweller's cash sales of 8 November 2016. The Assessing Officer had accepted the sales and the stock, had not disturbed the closing stock, and had found no defect in the stock register on either of two surveys; purchases, sales and stock are interlinked and inseparable, every purchase increases the stock and every sale reduces it, and where the movement matches the sales there is no basis to disbelieve them. Because the receipts had already been admitted as revenue receipts and offered as turnover, the Tribunal held there was no case for adding them under section 68 or taxing them again under section 115BBE. Suspicion, however strong, cannot decide the matter against the assessee without tangible evidence disproving the sales.
• Syed Maqsoodulla v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerJudgment not reachable
  You file under s.44AD. Can cash deposits still be added under s.68 and taxed at the higher rate?
  On this reasoning, no. An assessee who offers income under s.44AD is not required to maintain books, and a bank statement is the bank's record. Without books there is no foundation for s.68, and the addition was deleted.
• CBDT letter of 29 May 2026 on invoking ss.68 to 69D with s.115BBE CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  Is there anything from the Board telling the officer he has to establish the section before he makes a deeming addition?
  Yes. Following a C&AG compliance audit that found officers were invoking the wrong section and applying the wrong rate, the Board directed field offices that the Assessing Officer "has to satisfy himself as to the true nature and source of the amounts for which such sections are invoked", that the necessary enquiry — including under s.133(6) — may be carried out, and that "Based upon inquiry and facts of the case, relevant provisions of the Act may be invoked." The same letter gives the Income-tax Act 2025 counterparts: s.195 for s.115BBE and s.252 for s.133(6), each one for one, and “section 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106” against the whole set “section 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D”, which is a correspondence between two lists and not between their members in order.
• Statutory position — section 79A: no set-off against undisclosed income found in a search, requisition or survey, from AY 2022-23 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  A search threw up unaccounted stock and cash and the Assessing Officer has added it. I have a large brought-forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation sitting there. Can I set them off against the addition?
  For AY 2022-23 and every later year, no. Section 79A, inserted by the Finance Act 2022 (Act No. 6 of 2022) with effect from 1 April 2022, says that where, consequent to a search under s.132, a requisition under s.132A or a survey under s.133A other than s.133A(2A), the total income of any previous year includes undisclosed income, no set-off of any loss — brought forward or of the current year — and no set-off of unabsorbed depreciation under s.32(2) shall be allowed against that undisclosed income under any provision of the Act.
• CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 — set-off of loss against s.115BBE income CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  Is there anything from the Board itself I can put in front of the officer on setting off losses against s.68 or s.69 additions in an old year?
  Yes. Circular No. 11 of 2019 records the Board's view that an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under s.115BBE up to assessment year 2016-17. It is the department's own instruction, so an Assessing Officer cannot take a contrary view for those years — and by the same document, the position from assessment year 2017-18 is that the set-off is denied.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.