← All Phrases

“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
87
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
77
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

DCIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Apple Commodities Ltd, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross

ITA 2241/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2241 To 2244/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2014-15 बनाम Dcit Apple Commodities Ltd., 701-A, 7Th Floor, Central Circle-Ii, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B-08, Sector-33, Noida, Netaji Subhash Place, Uttar Pradesh. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan No.Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection Nos. 124 To 127/Del/2019 (In Ita Nos. 2241 To 2244/Del/2019) Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 बनाम Apple Commodities Ltd., Dcit 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B-08, Netaji Subhash Place, Sector-33, Noida, Pitampura, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 15Section 153C

appeals of the Revenue is as to whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer as an unexplained investment being share capital and share premium are sustainable in the absence of incriminating material seized in the course of search. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that ... additions towards share capital and share premium were made by the AO based on the ledger accounts, confirmation accounts by various parties which are all part of regular books of accounts and there is no incriminating material was seized in the course of search belonging to the assessee

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 49,50,000/- on the account of credits of shares capital and share premium treated as alleged unaccounted income introduced u/s 68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2015, made various additions including of share capital and share premium of Rs. 2.49 crores, addition on account of disallowance of foreign travel expenses, exchange difference and disallowance under Section

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 49,50,000/- on the account of credits of shares capital and share premium treated as alleged unaccounted income introduced u/s 68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2015, made various additions including of share capital and share premium of Rs. 2.49 crores, addition on account of disallowance of foreign travel expenses, exchange difference and disallowance under Section

The DCIT, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Clayris Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 287/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 68

deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 5,30,63,780/- on account of credit of share capital and share premium. ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 8 10. The assessee in the year under consideration allotted fresh shares ... adjusted against the share application money. Thus, the AO in view of the treated the credit of share capital and share premium for Rs. 6,29,01,740/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. However, the AO while ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018

Jayem Realty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

ITA 2216/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. PCIT failed to considered that provision of Section 68 is applicable on share capital and share premium from AY 2013-14 whereas the year under consideration is AY 2010-11. Thus, the Ld. AO rightly applied the provision

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share capital money) years 2012-13 to 2017-18 - - Assessment 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

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share capital money) years 2012-13 to 2017-18 - - Assessment 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jayem Holding Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

ITA 93/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

taken-up for scrutiny assessment, wherein the funds raised during the year in the form of Share capital and share premium has been entirely added to the income of Third Eye Vinimay amounting to Rs. 12,77,50,000/-, treating the same as unexplained income ... aforesaid summary statement of the Balance sheet of the Third eye Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Ld. AR submitted that the entire share capital and share premium receipt of the Third Eye Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. in the AY 2012-13 amounting to Rs. 65,86,600/- and Rs.12

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7309/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

first aspect.” 46. We have also noticed that the assessee apart from submitting the various documents related to receipt of share capital and share premium as listed hereinabove, also furnished coupled with the fact entire group had a turnover of over Rs. 2500 crores in financial year

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

first aspect.” 46. We have also noticed that the assessee apart from submitting the various documents related to receipt of share capital and share premium as listed hereinabove, also furnished coupled with the fact entire group had a turnover of over Rs. 2500 crores in financial year

Neelkanth Buildcraft P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1347/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 68

alone. The assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity/genuineness and creditworthiness of the person who have invested as share capital and share premium with the assessee company. 6 The assessee was required to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the amount received as Inter Corporate

A.C.I.T. Central Cir. 2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S Saphire Steel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkatta (W.B)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

record by the AO in support of allegation that unaccounted money belonging to the assessee introduced in the form of share capital and share premium. We find the allegation of the AO, that the assessee utilized the services of D.P. Sarda for the alleged non-genuine share ... share application and share premium. We find the assessee has discharged its onus by furnishing the details of share capital and share premium showing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by cogent evidence. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding

A.C.I.T. Central Cir. 2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S Saphire Steel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkatta (W.B)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 41/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

record by the AO in support of allegation that unaccounted money belonging to the assessee introduced in the form of share capital and share premium. We find the allegation of the AO, that the assessee utilized the services of D.P. Sarda for the alleged non-genuine share ... share application and share premium. We find the assessee has discharged its onus by furnishing the details of share capital and share premium showing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by cogent evidence. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding

A.C.I.T. Central Cir. 2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S Saphire Steel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkatta (W.B)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/NAG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

record by the AO in support of allegation that unaccounted money belonging to the assessee introduced in the form of share capital and share premium. We find the allegation of the AO, that the assessee utilized the services of D.P. Sarda for the alleged non-genuine share ... share application and share premium. We find the assessee has discharged its onus by furnishing the details of share capital and share premium showing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by cogent evidence. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Puja Synthetics Private Limited, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

enclosed for your ready reference. 10. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessee duly submitted all relevant records relating to the share capital and share premium raised. If Ld. AO had any doubt, he could have proceeded with further enquiry, which was not done. It is again submitted

DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Avaada Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2089/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2

holding the action of ld.AO in making addition of Rs.22,07,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained bogus share capital and share premium received from M/s. Nimbus Dealers Pvt. Ltd. by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 as incorrect, for the reasons mentioned ... holding the action of Id.AO in making addition of Rs.13,87,50,000/- on account of alleged unexplained bogus share capital and share premium from M/s. Luxury Vinimay Pvt Ltd. by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as incorrect, for the reasons mentioned

Avaada Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 1754/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2

holding the action of ld.AO in making addition of Rs.22,07,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained bogus share capital and share premium received from M/s. Nimbus Dealers Pvt. Ltd. by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 as incorrect, for the reasons mentioned ... holding the action of Id.AO in making addition of Rs.13,87,50,000/- on account of alleged unexplained bogus share capital and share premium from M/s. Luxury Vinimay Pvt Ltd. by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as incorrect, for the reasons mentioned

ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi vs. Direct Trading Co. P. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5220/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: - a) M/s Saras Developers Pvt. Ltd
Section 133(6)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,30,22,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital and share premium and Rs.2,30,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original

Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.48 & 09/Srt/2020 (Ays 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, 1St Floor, Vs Pipes Pvt. Ltd.) Survey No.389 Room No.113, Aaykar Bhawan, Orma, Taluika Olpad, Surat-394 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 540 [Pan Aaeck 0608 B] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 68

assessment order no details were furnished despite issuing repeated show cause notice and to proceed under section 144, no explanation regarding share capital and share premium was filed, the assessing officer treated Rs.8.42 crores, as unexplained cash under section68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that ... case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom) and in assessment year 2013-14, the share capital and share premium by foreign investors and the proviso inserted in Section 68 is applicable in respect of resident investors as apparent from said proviso

Kavish Focus Pipes Pvt Ltd (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Pipes Pvt. Ltd), Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.48 & 09/Srt/2020 (Ays 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, 1St Floor, Vs Pipes Pvt. Ltd.) Survey No.389 Room No.113, Aaykar Bhawan, Orma, Taluika Olpad, Surat-394 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 540 [Pan Aaeck 0608 B] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 68

assessment order no details were furnished despite issuing repeated show cause notice and to proceed under section 144, no explanation regarding share capital and share premium was filed, the assessing officer treated Rs.8.42 crores, as unexplained cash under section68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that ... case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom) and in assessment year 2013-14, the share capital and share premium by foreign investors and the proviso inserted in Section 68 is applicable in respect of resident investors as apparent from said proviso