← All Phrases

“share application money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,489 judgments

The decision most relied on for share application money is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), cited in 854 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on share application money

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT
264 ITR 254 · 2003 · High Court
340
citing judgments

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.
361 ITR 220 · 2014 · High Court
328
citing judgments

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.
205 ITR 98 · 1994 · High Court
295
citing judgments

To discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, an assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction, confirming that the payment was truly made by them.

CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd.
333 ITR 119 · 2011 · High Court
292
citing judgments

When explaining cash credits under Section 68, the assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness or financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction. Merely proving identity does not discharge this initial onus, which shifts to the Assessing Officer once these three elements are prima facie proven.

CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers
350 ITR 407 · 2013 · High Court
264
citing judgments

For any sum credited in an assessee's books, including share application money, the assessee must prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to discharge this onus under Section 68 renders the amount taxable.

Judgments citing share application money

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 5850/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

statement on oath recorded by the ACIT Central Circle-45, Mumbai on 13.10.2008 that no actual transactions of either sale/purchase of share application money were entered into by his company M/s. Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd and they have given the entries in respect of share application/unsecured loans. During the previous ... Trading Pvt. Ltd. has admitted in his statement on oath recorded on 13.11.2008 that no actual transactions of either sale/purchase of share application money were entered into by his company, M/s. Jas Trading Pvt Ltd. and they have only given the entries in respect of share application/unsecured loans. During

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 3603/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

statement on oath recorded by the ACIT Central Circle-45, Mumbai on 13.10.2008 that no actual transactions of either sale/purchase of share application money were entered into by his company M/s. Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd and they have given the entries in respect of share application/unsecured loans. During the previous ... Trading Pvt. Ltd. has admitted in his statement on oath recorded on 13.11.2008 that no actual transactions of either sale/purchase of share application money were entered into by his company, M/s. Jas Trading Pvt Ltd. and they have only given the entries in respect of share application/unsecured loans. During

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4272/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ Ito-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7Th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash Chsl, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arwps1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-45, Mumbai, Dated 29.03.2018 For A.Y.2014-15 & Dated 12.03.2019 For Ay. 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 68

establish the genuineness of the party such as Pan of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the assessee has also produced the entire record regarding issuance of shares i.e. allotment of shares

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 and submitted that if the share application money received by company is alleged to be from bogus shareholders, then the Department is free to proceed against such bogus shareholders and such income

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 and submitted that if the share application money received by company is alleged to be from bogus shareholders, then the Department is free to proceed against such bogus shareholders and such income

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 and submitted that if the share application money received by company is alleged to be from bogus shareholders, then the Department is free to proceed against such bogus shareholders and such income

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 and submitted that if the share application money received by company is alleged to be from bogus shareholders, then the Department is free to proceed against such bogus shareholders and such income

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 and submitted that if the share application money received by company is alleged to be from bogus shareholders, then the Department is free to proceed against such bogus shareholders and such income

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ktg Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4336/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.4336/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Ito-12 (3) (1), Room No.147A, 1St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Ktg Developers Pvt. Ltd., Link Komal Co-Op Gh Society, Flat No.3, Plot No.81-A, Linking Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400 054 Pan: Aacck-9929-R ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Singh सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh
Section 68

Rules’) (ii) Deleting addition of Rs.93.00 lacs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in respect of share application money. (iii) Deleting addition of Rs.5,44,49,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of loan creditors. (iv) Directions to the Assessing Officer ... taken by assessee from M/s. Partheshesh Developers. 3. Shri Tejinder Pal Singh representing the Department submitted that the assessee had taken loans and share application money. The assessee filed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons from whom loans/ share application money was received. Thus, the Assessing Officer made