← 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

Pride Paradise and Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office -WD 7(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.50/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Pride Paradise & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-7(3)(1) Room No. 126J, 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 601, Orbit Plaza, New Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Prabhadevi Road, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp3042N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Ao Has Made An Addition Of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2007-08 On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,820/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Scrutized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Vide Order Dated 09.12.2009 Accepting The Return Of Income. Later On, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai Pursuant To A Search Carried

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that the assessee is a beneficiary of obtaining accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- in the nature of “Share Capital and Share Premium” during AY. 2007-08 from M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd which was a group concern of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain Group

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 526/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd........….……………………....................……….……Appellant 12, Waterloo Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aadcv1161H] Vs. A.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narayan Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2018 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2014 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 968 Days. On Going Through The Condonation Application In The Form Of Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That This Delay Is Accountable For Two Reasons. Firstly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 06.03.2018 & The Assessee Has Not Received The Order On Time. Secondly, The Period Of Delay Occurred On Account Of Lockdown In The State Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19. In View Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Also The Extension Of Limitation Period By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation & A Further Period Of 90 Days Has Been Granted For Providing The Limitation From 01.03.2022, We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 68

scrutiny assessment and during the course of assessment proceedings, it had failed to satisfy the A.O about the source of share capital and share premium to the tune of Rs.5,68,48,000/-. When the addition made u/s 68 of the Act was challenged by the assessee before ... justice and being fair to both the parties, remit the issue raised on merits about the alleged unexplained cash credit of share capital and share premium to the tune of Rs.5,68,48,000/- to the ld. CIT(A) for Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year