“share capital and share premium”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68694 judgments

The decision most relied on for share capital and share premium is CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268), cited in 426 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on share capital and share premium

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court

426

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 680 · 2017 · High Court

303

citing judgments

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court

172

citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

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.

CIT v. Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd.

40 Taxmann.com 458 · 2013 · High Court

135

citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits like share capital or premium cannot be sustained if the assessee provides the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, and the Assessing Officer fails to conduct further enquiries into the 'source of source' or the ultimate source of funds of the investor/creditor.

CIT v. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd.

366 ITR 110 · 2014 · High Court

110

citing judgments

For additions under Section 68 related to share capital and premium, the assessee must prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the investors, beyond merely disclosing their identities. Additions are permissible for amounts attributable to investors whose particulars remain unverified or who fail to respond to inquiries.

PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

84 Taxmann.com 58 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings initiated on the ground that companies providing share capital were non-existent, if the assessee provides documentary evidence of their existence, the burden shifts to the revenue to establish reasons for reassessment.

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

206 ITR 718 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

Judgments citing share capital and share premium

Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Nashik

ITA 1249/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68

deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act made for alleged unexplained share application money in the form of share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.7,26,50,000/-. During the year, the assessee company received share capital including share premium of Rs.7

ACIT CC 7(4), Mumbai vs. Aayush Infotech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5915/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (supra) is misplaced, as the said decision was rendered in the context of unexplained share capital and share premium where the assessee had failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors despite detailed investigation by the Assessing Officer

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

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

opinion that the submission made by assessee are not acceptable in regard with the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Accordingly share capital and share premium amount collected/received by the assessee from the five parties amounting to Rs.94,00,000/- are not genuine and the same has been treated

Cygnus Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3181/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarcygnus Infrabuild Vs Ito, Ward 3(4), Private Limited, New Delhi Qu-9A, Lig Flats, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034 (Pan: Aaecc1802B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 68

after making the addition of Rs. 9,80,075/- on the estimated income of 5% on its receipts and the unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs. 73,50,000/-. 4. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2081/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

wherein an addition of Rs. 21,39,80,400/- was made under section 68 on account of unexplained share capital and share premium. The appellant challenged this addition primarily on the ground that all requisite evidences were furnished to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants ... against the addition of Rs. Rs.21,39,80,400/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital and share premium received by the appellant company in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under reference. Since all these grounds of appeal

ITO-1(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1027/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantito- 1(3)(4) Vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Room No. 528, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Room No. 19, 3Rd Floor Mumbai- 400020 6 M.K. Amin Marg, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv1302N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri. Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,62,27,500/- Made By The Ao Under I The Provisions Of Section 68 Of The 2 Vishwas Rayons Private Limited

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 4Section 68

Yash Enterprises of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- aggregating to Rs. 4,05,00,000/-towards share capital and share premium which was forfeited by the assessee. Consequently, the AO made additions of this amount u/s 4 Vishwas Rayons Private Limited 68 of the Act on the ground ... money to assessee. But, in their books of accounts, they had shown the transaction as loan instead of investment in the share capital and share premium. In this regard, the assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2016 filed during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted that the parties might

Horizon Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalhorizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, C-131, Ground Floor, Block-C, Central Circle-Ii, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Vs. Faridabad, Sushant Lok-1, Haryana-121001. Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aacch4582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.01.2025 In Appeal No.10581/Cit(A) Ggn-3/2018-19 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.54,833/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Received Loan Horizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits (Share capital money) – Assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 – Assessee-company received share capital and share premium money from several investors – Assessing Officer made addition in respect of same on account of unaccounted income under section 68 on basis

Kameshwar Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 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, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68

return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The case was originally selected for scrutiny on the issue of share capital and share premium received during the year. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Income ... ground of alleged non-compliance, and made an addition of ₹2,00,00,000 being share capital and share premium received from various companies, treating the same as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under I.T.A. No.49/Ran/2025 Kameshwar Alloys And Steels

Baba Healthcare Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle -1, Fbd

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 476/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbaba Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Ipso Legal, H-35, 1St Circle-1, Floor, Jangpura Faridabad Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcb7985R Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv Ms. Ssumnagla Saxena, Adv Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

observed that Assessee has received share premium from 5 parties during the year. The list of parties from whom the share capital and share premium was received are tabulated in page 2 of the assessment order. The Learned AO noted that the share premium was justified ... seeking the following information:- a) Confirmation whether any share was purchased of the Assessee company b) Mode of payment towards share capital and share premium c) Copy of acknowledgement of income tax return. 3.1. Both the parties submitted the requisite details in response to notice under Section

M/S Anjeneye Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/RAN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.74/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand – 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: 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 Section 143(1). During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received Share Capital & Share Premium Aggregating To ₹3,00,00,000 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Issued Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 148 Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Complete Details Of The Share Applicants, Including Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions. In Response, The Assessee Furnished Complete Details In Respect Of The Share Capital/Share Premium Received From The Following Parties:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 68

which was processed under section 143(1). During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received share capital and share premium aggregating to ₹3,00,00,000 during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 142(1) and 148 requiring ... master data showing active status, Bank statements evidencing transactions through banking channels. Despite the above submissions, the Assessing Officer treated the share capital and share premium amount as unexplained and made an addition of Rs.2,70,00,000 under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however

New Track Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Westcourt Hospitality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3351/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Acit, Circle 25(1), Room Vs M/S. Westcourt Hospitality No. 192A, Cr Building, Pvt. Ltd. Ip Estate New-Delhi. 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, 110002 New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/S. Westcourt Hospitality Vs Acit, Circle 25(1),Room Pvt. Ltd. No. 192A, Cr Building, Ip 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Estate New-Delhi. 110002 Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Westcourt Hospitality Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Bhavika Ravi Sukhija, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central)-Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5220/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Haresh P. KhunadiaFor Respondent: 17/12/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

loans, share accommodation entries in the nature of unsecured loans, share accommodation entries in the nature of unsecured loans, share capital and share premium, bogus long premium, bogus long-term capital gains, hawala term capital gains, hawala transactions and routing of unaccounted cash, inter alia

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reasoned and speaking order in this regard. Accordingly, we uphold the same. 9. So far as the issue of receipt of share capital and share premium is concerned we observe that the amendment to Section 68 by inserting proviso is not retrospective and is applicable retrospective, has been

Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

were also furnished. The ld. AO noted that the assessee company had received ₹32,04,00,000/- by way of share capital and share premium by issuing equity shares at a face value of ₹10/- each at a premium of ₹190/- per share. During the course

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwarjka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2355/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

categorical findings of the Id CITA that there is absolutely no incriminating materials found during the course of search regarding the share capital and share premium received by the assessee company during the year under appeal except the fact that the modus operandi of raising of such capital