← 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

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Vinod Nirman Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vinod Nirman Private Dcit Limited 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vill Kalachara, Chanditala Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Kolkata- Vs. P.O. Kolkata, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal 712702, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv5313J Co No. 44/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 1540/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14) Vinod Nirman Private Dcit Limited 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vill Kalachara, Chanditala Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Kolkata- Vs. P.O. Kolkata, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal 712702, West Bengal (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 26Section 68

case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, after the AO received information that assessee is a beneficiary of bogus share capital of ₹1,48,00,000/- and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22.09.2017. The assessee complied with said notice by filing return ... basis of information recovered during search and post search operation that the assessee has been beneficiary of bogus share capital from three subscribers amounting to ₹ 1,48,00,000/-, the details of which are given in extraction of the appellate order above. We note that