← All Phrases

“bogus share capital”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68263 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus share capital is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (139 Taxmann.com 352), cited in 443 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus share capital

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi
126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court
249
citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd.
251 ITR 263 · 2001 · Supreme Court
233
citing judgments

An increase in a company's subscribed share capital cannot be treated as the company's undisclosed income under section 68, even if the subscribers to the capital are found not to be genuine. The amount of share capital cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the company itself.

MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case
354 ITR 282 · 2013 · High Court
154
citing judgments

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the initial burden is on the assessee to establish the authenticity of transactions for unexplained credits. Once authenticity is proven, this burden shifts, and the assessee is not required to prove the genuineness or source of funds of the creditor beyond this.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT
6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

Judgments citing bogus share capital

Hiteshi Leasing and Housing Pvt Ltd, New Delho vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4620/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhiteshi Leasing & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad. E – 335, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aaach8298J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 04.081.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A), While Passing The Order Erred In: A. Passing The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 153A Despite The Fact The Assessee Was Not Searched & The Assessee Was Issued Notice Under Section 153C On 29.1 1.2013. This Is A Jurisdictional Error

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

content establishes the fact in issue. 16. Like in case in hand the allegations are of introduction of own funds by way of bogus share capital receipt through shell companies. This fact in issue, certainly required that the disputed documents had some information about some trail of transaction which ... have been convinced himself on his understanding of the seized documents that as the seized documents are generally used for transactions of bogus share capital receipt so they are incriminating material for the purpose of search assessment. 17. It can be observed from the impugned assessment order that same

Sanjay Kumar Drolia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1025/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1025/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Sanjay Kumar Drolia, Vs Ito Ward-49(1), Kolkata 48/7, Tulsidham, Jessore Road, Bangur Avenue Crossing, Kolkata-700055 Pan No. : Admpd 0082 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Chennai, Dated 24.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Original Return Of Income On 02.04.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.9,11.110/-. The A.O. Was In Receipt Of An Information From Ddit (The) Wing, Unit-3(1), Kolkata, Wherein It Was Stated That The Assessee Was Engaged In Facilitating Accommodation Entry In The Form Of Bogus Billing, Bogus Share Capital, Unsecured Loan To The Beneficiary Companies In Lieu Of Commission At The Rate Of 0.50 Percent Of Cheque Amount During The Period From F.Y.2009-10 To 2013-14. On The Basis Of The Said Information, The Ld. A.O. Issued A Notice U/S 148 Of The I. T. Act, 1961, After Obtaining Approval From Appropriate Authority. In Response To The Said Notice The Assessee E-

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148

Unit-3(1), Kolkata, wherein it was stated that the assessee was engaged in facilitating accommodation entry in the form of bogus billing, bogus share capital, unsecured loan to the beneficiary companies in lieu of commission at the rate of 0.50 percent of cheque amount during the period from F.Y.2009-10 ... Kolkata, wherein he was forced to admit that commission 0.50 percent was earned for providing accommodation entry in the form of bogus billing, bogus share capital, unsecured loan to the beneficiaries. For the first time during the assessment proceedings on 21.11.2017, statement of assessee was provided for rebuttal. On receiving