← 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

Dharti Commercial Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Range-6(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1905/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prmod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1905/Mum/2020 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Range-6(2)(2), Dharti Commercial Trading 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhawan, Churchgate, (Formerly Known As Dharti बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Investment & Holdings Limited) Vs. Office No. C107, Plot No. 6, Sector 11, Dronagiri, Navi Mumbai-400702 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd2509C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 496/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dharti Commercial Trading Acit Range-6(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Pvt. Ltd. Churchgate, (Formerly Known As Dharti Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Investment & Holdings Limited) Vs. Office No. C107, Plot No. 6, Sector 11, Dronagiri, Navi Mumbai-400702 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd2509C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Ms. Moksha Mehta, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Chandra, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & MsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Chandra, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

assessment proceedings u/s.143 (3) on 02.12.2010: (i) The total source of funds of the issuer company, M/s.Amma Lines Ltd, before receipt of the share application money paid by the assessee company, is Rs.22 crore only. The turnover of the company, PBT, Dividend Rate an EPS in FY.2006-07 and FY.2007- ... assessee company was passed by M/s.Amma Lines in its EGM on 4th August, 2007 only, almost the entire sum of Rs.155.50 crore as share application money had already been paid to M/s.Amma Lines Ltd by the assessee company in FY.2006-07 itself on the following dates, starting almost a year

DCIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5704/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5704/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mangalkalash Trading Dcit Cc– 3(2), Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, Air बिधम/ F-702, Nandanvan Chs Ltd. India Building, Nariman Vs. Link Road, Kandivali(W), Point, Mumbai-40 021 Mumbai400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafcm8158F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.07.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

after detail discussion held that assessee was a paper entity of Shri Rinku Patodia, established only for the purpose of routing the bogus share application money. Accordingly, the AO has made substantive addition for Rs. 6,25,00,000/- on the receipt of bogus share application money in the case ... case of assessee. He also made protective addition of Rs. 15,62,500/- on ad hoc commission @ 2.5% for routing bogus share application money. 3 I.T.A. No. 5704/Mum/2018 M/s Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd. 3. Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the protective addition on the ground that already he has confirmed

Brocade Communications Systems Private Limited, Bengluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 656/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 28Section 92C

assessment proceedings relating to the draft order over which the DRP can exercise powers of enhancement. The admitted position is that the share application money issue was not considered by the AO in the draft Order of Assessment and therefore the DRP under section 144C(8) of the Act could

M/S. C. M.. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2122/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2122 & 2123/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Cm Bright Bars Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(1) Ltd,705, B Wing, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Kamal, Dr. Babasaheb M.K.Road, Ambekar Road, Churchgate, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4577A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. Ar Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Viraj Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. AR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 32Section 68

deleted. ITA 2122 & 2123/Mum/2021 M/s CM Bright Bars Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 4.Addion made u/s 68 of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- as unexplained share application money The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred ... unexplained share application money of Rs. 3,75,00,000/-. Such addition is bad in law & erroneous in facts and therefore liable to be deleted. 5. Disallowance of Depreciation u/s 32 of Rs. 21,81,339/ The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation made