What is CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. authority for?

To discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, an assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction, confirming that the payment was truly made by them.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.?

295 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. (205 ITR 98), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, Section 133(6).

CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. (205 ITR 98)

Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane vs. Credential Equities P. Ltd, Bhayander

In the result, the appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 3808/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…sions on the issue including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 11 M/s. Credential Equities Pvt. Ltd., Lovely Exports P Ltd (supra), decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd reported in 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB) and the decision in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd (supra) observed as under: "It is clear from the above that the initial burden is upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the share application money received by the assessee. In order to discharge this burden, the assessee is required to prove: (a) the identity…

Etal Enser Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(3), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 769/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 131Section 143(3)

…elevant and extraneous consideration. 1(b). That the observation of Learned. AO that creditworthiness of share holders is not established is contrary to the ratio of decisions in CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. 192 ITR 287 (Del) and CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 (Del) 1© That on the facts and in respect to the circumstances of the case, Learned. AO has proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception on law in considering share capital of Rs.25,00,000/- received from 3 corporate entities as unexplained cash credit u/s/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. 5.1 The relevant facts of the issue are that during the relevant pr…

Shri Nareshbhai V Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT-33(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2014] 222 Taxman 157/42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi) and CIT v. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 258/42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi) The above decisions refer to the earlier decisions of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/[1993] 70 Taxman 69 (FB), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi) and observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 319 ITR (St.) 5 (SC). 5.5 In the case of N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. (supra), it has been held as under: — '18. In the remand report, the Asse…

Ocean Thermoplastics Elastomers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1) & 19(2), New Delhi

ITA 655/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

…of subscriber company when there was material to show that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes. (ii) In the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (F.B.) it was held that, Provisions of s. 68 are applicable even to share application money and if on enquiry it is found that "shareholders do not exist, sum credited may be treated as assessee's income. (iii) In the case of Titan Securities Ltd. [357 ITR 184 (del)] it was held that, Where Assessing Officer found that share applicants in c…

Huron Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed on this preliminary

ITA 6251/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Garg, Adv. & Shri AkarshFor Respondent: Ms. Sugandha Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.6251/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Huron Builders Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO Ward-6(1), S-19, 2nd Floor, Star City, New Delhi. District Centre, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCH6627E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K. Garg, Adv. & Shri Akarsh Garg, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Sugandha Sharma, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 09 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 03 10 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The appellant namely, M/s Chauran Sales Pvt.…