← 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, New Delhi vs. M/S Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Agra

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

ITA 2927/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

Rs.10/- + Rs.890/- premium per share) and has raised a total amount of Rs.23,35,14,000/- in the form of share capital and share premium from three entities, the details of which are as under:- S. Name of Entity Amount Details of Amount No. Received ... value + Rs.890/- premium per share) and has received a total amount of Rs.23,35,14,000/- in the form of share capital and share premium from three entities, namely, M/s Global Merchandisers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kabir Commodities Pvt. Ltd., and M/s DD Resorts Pvt. Ltd. After considering

M/S. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2422/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

Rs.10/- + Rs.890/- premium per share) and has raised a total amount of Rs.23,35,14,000/- in the form of share capital and share premium from three entities, the details of which are as under:- S. Name of Entity Amount Details of Amount No. Received ... value + Rs.890/- premium per share) and has received a total amount of Rs.23,35,14,000/- in the form of share capital and share premium from three entities, namely, M/s Global Merchandisers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kabir Commodities Pvt. Ltd., and M/s DD Resorts Pvt. Ltd. After considering

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5204/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mrs Aashna Paul, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)

amount. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the credit worthiness of Mr. Arun Gupta could not be ascertained towards the share capital and share premium as well as unsecured loans amounting to a total of Rs.6,75,75,579/-. 8. So far as Shiroki Corporation is concerned ... find, the AO, in the instant case, made an addition of Rs.34,21,39,718/- being the amount of share capital and share premium and unsecured loan received by the assessee from the following parties/persons on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate the ingredients of section