KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

ITA 49/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 January 2026AY 2014-15Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing audited financial statements, ITRs, bank statements, share application forms, and confirmations from investor companies. The Tribunal noted that the investor companies were active and had substantial net worth, and the investment was a small percentage of their net worth.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received ₹2 crore as share capital and premium. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing non-appearance of directors of investor companies and relying on the test of human probability. The CIT(A) sustained the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of share capital and premium as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 is justified when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 05.02.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The case was originally selected for scrutiny on the issue of share capital and share premium receiv

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →