What is CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. authority for?

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.?

146 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (192 ITR 287), spanning 2008 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, Section 142(1), Section 139(1).

CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (192 ITR 287)

Amplex Projects Private Limited, Agartala vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle Silchar, Silchar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 333/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 250

…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, hut it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company CIT vs Steller Investment Ltd (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del) "It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. It may be that there are some bogus shareholders in whose names share had been issued and the money may have…

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…ed.Theassessee did discharge the initial onus cast upon in this case. Further in the case of CIT vs. First Point Finance Ltd (Supra) the Honble High Court followed the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inthe case of Steller Investment Ltd. 192 ITR 287 which has now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Steller Investment 251 ITR 263. The ratio laid down in this case was that Sec.68 shall not apply on share application money. "13 We have considered the rivalcontentions, relevant material on record, as also the cited decisions. In 192 ITR 287 Steller Investment Ltd., Hon…

ITO, Ward- 15(3), New Delhi vs. Livewire Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7542/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaito, Ward 15(3) Vs. M/S Livewire Commercial Room No. 311-A, 3Rd Private Limited Floor, C.R. Building, 39/1386, Chandni Chowk, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 110006 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl2105J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar (Executive of the company)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…wise Commercial Pvt. Ltd. identity of the shareholder is established, no addition on account of share capital can be made in the hands of the company-assessee. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Limited 192 ITR 287 that addition of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the assessee company. The above decision was later on affirmed in CIT vs Steller Investment Ltd 251 ITR 263 (Supreme Court). In this regard, reference was made to the following decisions also: Anima Investment (P) Ltd. VS. ACIT 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) (TM) - Share application money - Wher…

Ambey Laboratories Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2334/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanambey Laboratories Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2), Ground Floor, Property No.555, Delhi. Tarla Mohalla Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaaca4317R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 31.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 04.11.2017 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,30,39,,439/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…connection, the Appellant has relied on the following decisions: • CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014361 ITR 220 (Delhi High Court) • CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263 (Supreme Court) [Decision in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi High Court) affirmed] • CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (Supreme Court) 4. The Appellant has duly established the genuineness of the transaction, the same being routed through legitimate banking channels, where payment was made through account payee cheques in such a case there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of…

Aakash Universal Limited ( Merged Entity Rajkiran Textiles Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1197/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…share capital were not genuine the amount could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company and no question of law arose for reference- Justified-No interference is called for.- CIT vs. stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 99 CTR (Del) 40 : (1991) 192 ITR 287 (SC): TC 55R.593 affirmed,." 30. M/s V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO Appeal No 246 of 2017 dated 01.09.2016 (HC) PCIT (Central) - 4 v/s M/s Acquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd (HC) Where assessee allotted shares to α company in settlement of pre-existing liability of assessee to said company, since no cash was involved in transaction of said allotme…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…1. In such view of the matter, the substantial question of law (2) also does not merit consideration. 12. In fact, to arrive at such conclusion, the Madras High Court has relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/ 59 Taxman 568 (Delhi), which judgement has been confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court and the same was reported in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 115 Taxman 99 / 251 ITR 263 (SC).” 8.2 The Hon'ble High Court has held that, if such report is filed before the assessment is completed, then the requirement of provisions of the Act has been…

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…1. In such view of the matter, the substantial question of law (2) also does not merit consideration. 12. In fact, to arrive at such conclusion, the Madras High Court has relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/ 59 Taxman 568 (Delhi), which judgement has been confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court and the same was reported in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 115 Taxman 99 / 251 ITR 263 (SC).” 8.2 The Hon'ble High Court has held that, if such report is filed before the assessment is completed, then the requirement of provisions of the Act has been…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.252/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikash Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 01/…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.247/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…enable in law, as it should altogether be excluded as evidence, as it was never provided to the appellant company for rebuttal. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v Stellar Investments Ltd reported in 192 ITR 287 has held as under: "It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. It may be that there are some bogus shareholders in whose names shares had been issued and the m…

DCIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Bar Investments and Finance Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. Bar Investments & Central Circle – 13, Finance Private Limited B- New Delhi 64/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi-110052 Pan No. Aaacb0955E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Pradeep Dinodia,Ca Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Sh. Ravi Kumar, Ca Sh. Harish Dhamija, Ca Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ks of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessed. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessed regarding the nature the Income-tax Officer. In the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred to and the observations in the said judgment cannot mean that the Income-tax Officer cannot or should not go into the question as to whether the alleged shareholders actually existed or not. If the shareholders are identifie…