SHREE RAGHAV ISPAT (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while identity of parties is established through banking channels, genuineness and creditworthiness require further proof. The assessee was not properly confronted with the AO's findings regarding unserved notices. However, the share application money from one company was not substantiated.
What were the facts?
The assessee received share application money of Rs. 48.00 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained credit as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors, especially after notices to the investor companies were returned unserved or received no response.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee proved the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom share application money was received, and if not, whether the addition made by the AO was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman
Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2011-12 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 27.11.2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel ingots etc., filed its return of income for the A.Y 2011-12 on 22.01.2013 admitting a total income of Rs.17,88,100. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, from the books of account of the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown to have received share application money of Rs.48.00 lakhs during the year from three
ITA No 174 of 2016 Shree Raghav Ispat India P Ltd Hyderabad.
Ltd, Kolkata and Ba
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026