← 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

Blooming Diagnostics & Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4531/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Blooming Diagnostics & Impex Vs Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-5(1), C/O R.K. Tuli & Associates, Ca, New Delhi. 11/37, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aaccb9882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 10Th March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Additions Made By The Ao & Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,24,13,520/- Against The Returned Income Of The Assessee Of Rs.5,95,800/-. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Drugs, Medicines & Pathological Items. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.5,95,810/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 02.09.2014 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Through Speed Post. A Questionnaire Dated 22Nd October, 2014 U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee For Compliance.

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 68

assessee, he noted that during AY 2011-12, the assessee had received an amount of Rs.5,45,500/- towards share capital and share premium which has gone upto Rs.2,98,68,677/- during the year. Thus, there is an increase in the share capital and share