“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

DCIT 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Decore Thermal Power (P) Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 15/IND/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(viilb)Section 56(2)(vilb)Section 68

holding that provisions of section 56(2)(vilb) would get attracted when the company receives unaccounted money by way of share capital and share premium from resident shareholders, when there is a specific section to deal with receipts of unaccounted money which is to be taxed as unexplained ... provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) would get attracted where the closely held company receives unaccounted money by way of share capital and share premium from the resident shareholders in excess of fair market value of such company and the company is not able to substantiate such share

Garv Associates, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1267/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Garv Associates, Ito Ward -1(3), Faridabad B/105, Green Field Colony, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, Haryana 121010 Vs. Pan Aajfg 5926 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Revenue For : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Nfac, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2023 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Assessee, Except Ground No. 10, Does Not Want To Press Other Grounds Of Appeal Hence, Other Grounds Of Appeal Are Dismissed. Remaining Sole Effective Ground No. 10 Reads As Follows:- 10) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Interpreting Provision Of Section 68 After Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Matter In Respect Of Unsecured Loans Of Rs. 40,00,000/-, Raising The Following Questions:- I. Whether, 'First Proviso' Of 'Section 68' Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Squarely Covered Transaction In The Nature Of Unsecured Loans' Or Shall Restricted To Credits On Account Of 'Share Application Money', 'Share Capital', Share Premium Etc.? Ii. Whether, As Per Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, The Assessee Has Not Discharged Its Initial Onus To Prove: (1) Identity Of The Creditor Lenders; (2) Credit-Worthiness Of The Creditor Lender; & (3) Genuineness Of The Transaction. By Submitting Following Set Of Documentation:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, CA

Section 68

submitted that the first proviso to sec 68 of the Act is restricted to credits on account share application money, share capital and share premium etc. and this does not apply to transactions in the nature of unsecured loans therefore the addition is not sustainable on this

Ronit Capital Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6679/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6679/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ronit Capital बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(1) Management Ltd. 644, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. 233, Shreeji Industrial K. Road, Mumbai- Estate, Subhash Road, 400020. Jogeshwari (E)-400060. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9239D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 23.08.2019 For Ay. 2012-13 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.10,43,77,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.70,768/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Only Partly Complied With The Notice Issued By Him On 30.01.2015 & Therefore In View Of The Non-Compliance, He Framed Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Several Additions Totalling Rs 68.83 Crores, Which Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

share. It is noted that, in the remand proceedings, the assessee has furnished complete details in support of share capital and share premium raised during the year. The AO thereafter had made enquiries u/s 133(6) from all the investors for carrying out independent verification of these

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Apca Power Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9303/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

premium u/s 56(2) (viib) of the Income Tax Act 1961 made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the share capital and share premium have been received by the assessee company from a person, Sh. Vivek Chaudhri, who was not a resident in India

Apca Power Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8184/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. M/S R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 144/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

contrary to the evidence on record, as the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the creditworthiness of the entities investing in the share capital and share premiums of the assessee company as genuine, a finding which is factually incorrect, thereby rendering the decision, which is perverse?" 8. "Whether

Smt. Lalitha Padamchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Lalitha Kothari The Ito Ward-25(2)(5), 2/4, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, Western Express Highway, Vile Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Parle East, Near Airport Side Bandra (East) Service Road, Mumbai City, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400099. Pan No. Aacpl 3131 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ritesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 6Section 68Section 69C

both the A. Y. 2011-12 andA. Y. 2012-13 by ITO- Surat, wherein the entire Share Capital and Share Premium has been added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act and has been treated as its Income. The appellant has argued that in case ... submitted that 'M/s.Satyam Sai Builders (P) Ltd.' have settled the tax dispute arising on the count of addition in Form of Share Capital and Share Premium under the "The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020" introduced in the Union Budget 2020- 21, M/s. Satyam Sai Builders

Pingash Home Appliances Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena and Shyam Sunder, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(2)Section 251(1)Section 271Section 56Section 56(2)Section 68

anything substantive brought on record to justify the addition made by him. Learned Assessing Officer has simply added the amount of share capital and share premium on the ground that notices under section 133(6) have not been responded by the investor companies and that mere I filing ... deiete the addition made towards share capital and share premium u/s. 68 of the A c, We ^ ^ ^ enhancement of total income made by learned C1T(A) o f Rs 62,00.000/- on protective basis by treating the h uy treating the share premium CXC6SS of fflpp

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-8(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9824/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

sent by speed post and received by assessee on 25/12/2017 being fag end of the limitation period posted in relation to share capital and share premium received during the year. Having given such a short notice, the appellant with great difficulties, in response to the show cause notice

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7345/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Vandana Vidyut Limited, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 138/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.138/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Vandana Vidyut Limited Vandana Building, M.G Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaacv7850L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

contrary to the evidence on record, as the Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the identity, creditworthiness of the entities investing in the share capital and share premiums of the assessee company as genuine, a finding which is factually incorrect, thereby rendering the decision, which is perverse?" 13. "Whether

Dy C.I.T.Central Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2434/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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

Dy. Citcent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2433/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Dy. CIT Cent Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2432/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Dy. CIT Cent Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2431/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elvina Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2497/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT(DR)

Section 68

under:- "It is also pertinent to mention here that assessee's onus is not discharged at all merely showing that the share capital and share premium in it books of accounts when the revenue has the adverse information/ finding about the companies from whom the alleged share ... onus, even when payment is through the bank account. On the question of creditworthiness and genuineness of the alleged amount of share capital and share premium, no doubt, it reflected in the books of assessee which comes without any banking channels, but did not reflect actual genuine business

Tirupati Balaji Fiber Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2356/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargtirupati Balaji Fiber Ltd, Vs. Acit, 9Th Km Stone, Bhopra Road, Central Circle-28, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb3161E Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 68

note that the ld CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs. 85 lakhs treating the same as share capital and share premium. From the copies of the documents submitted by the assessee in his paper book dated 03.11.2022, I note that the assessee has filed copies

Mesers S R Ingosts Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi JainFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

income at Rs. Nil. During the course of search and seizure operation it was unearthed that the assessee company has received share capital and share premium in AY 2011-12. The maximum share capital and premium has been received through Kolkata based shell companies. Therefore ... perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the claim of having received the amount in question towards share capital and share premium during the earlier F.Y. 1999-2000 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 and not during the year under consideration was not accepted

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Jt CIT(OSD)-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Vainavin Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 878/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Is Covered By Series Of Decision In The Group Case Of The Assessee & In Support, Decision Of Itat In The Case Of Jcit(Osd) Vs. Nabendu Engineering Pvt. Ltd Ita No. 875/Mum/2022 Dated 12.12.2022 Wherein, Exactly Similar Grounds Were Raised Except In Variations In Figures Of Share Application Money. In This Case Also The Assessee Has Filed Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Raising Legal Issue Contending That Before The Ld Cit (A) The Assessee Has Raised These Legal Grounds That The Addition Made By The Ao Are Not Based On Any Incriminating Material Or Evidence Found During The Course Of Search Relating To The Additions Made By The Ao & Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 153C Of The Act. The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 68

huge premium of Rs.40/- per share. 23. These incriminating materials discredit the arguments of assessee and establishes the fact that share capital and share premium received in assessee's books is an "accommodation entry". Assessee has brought into its books of account unaccounted monies through the medium ... assessee has received the money are as under:- Sr. No. Name of the concern from Face Value Per Total whom Share capital with Share Premium is received 1 Crown Crops Science P. Ltd. 10 5,00,000 2 Dipankar Steel P. Ltd. 10 5,00,000 3 Kasare