M/S ANJENEYE ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 74/RAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 January 2026AY 2008-09Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member)10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing complete details of share applicants, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of transactions. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries, making the addition unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee received share capital and premium of ₹3,00,00,000. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained and made an addition under Section 68, despite the assessee furnishing details of share applicants, their creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness. The CIT(A) initially enhanced the addition, leading to confusion.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for share capital and premium is justified when the assessee has provided sufficient documentary evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, and the AO has not conducted independent inquiries?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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), Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 21.08.2018 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 is engaged in the manufacturing of pig iron. It filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹1,41,05,250, which was processed under

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 →