INCOME TAX-VI vs. UNITED BIOTECH P. LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal upheld the deletion, finding that the assessee had provided confirmations from corporate assessees who were assessed to tax. The Tribunal noted that the identity of the share applicants was proven, and the details of payments were on record.
What were the facts?
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 51,50,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning share application money received by the assessee. The Revenue argued that mere filing of returns or creditor confirmations do not prove creditworthiness and identity.
What were the issues?
Whether the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants are sufficiently proved by providing confirmations from corporate entities assessed to tax. Whether the ITAT's finding of fact regarding the identity of share applicants is sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.854 citing216 CTR 195 · 2008 · SC
#5 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 771/2010
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate
versus
UNITED BIOTECH P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through:
Date of Decision: 5th July, 2010
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act 1961”) challenging the order in Appeal No. 469/Del/2009 dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”). By this appeal, Revenue challenges the deletion of Rs. 51,50,000/- under Section 68 of Act 1961 in respect of share application money received by the assessee.
2010:DHC:3283-DB
Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for Revenue submits that just by filing income tax return or confirmation of creditors does not prove the creditworthiness and identity of a creditor specially when the creditor‟s bank accounts revealed credit by way of cash deposit or by „clearing‟ just before issuing cheques of almost equivalent amount. In this connection, Ms. Chopra relies upon certain observations in the order passed by the Assessing Officer.
However, upon perusal of the file, we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Commissioner”) and ITAT on the ground that confirmations in respect of the share applications were filed in the course of assessment proceedings and all share applicants were corporate assessees who had been assessed to tax with the Income Tax Department. The Commissioner and ITAT in their orders have not only mentioned each and every corporate entity which has purchased the shares but also the cheque numbers by which share application money has been paid to the assessee. In fact, the Commissioner and the ITAT have found, as a matter of fact, that the assessee has proved the identity of the share applicants.
While dealing with a similar issue under Section 68 of the Act, 1961, the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC) has stated as under :- “2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no 2010:DHC:3283-DB
merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. 3. Subject to the above, Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
In view of aforesaid, since the identity of the share applicants has been established and it has been found that the said applicants are corporate assessees who were assessed to tax with the Income Tax Department, we are of the view that in the present case no substantial question of law arises. Consequently, appeal is dismissed in limine but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 05th, 2010 rn
2010:DHC:3283-DB
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026