← 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

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. premium of Rs.15 per share, in the assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted the details substantiating the share application money received along with the premium from Mr. Anil Bhalla. The AO has accepted the facts of paid up value of shares to the extent ... admitted the additional evidences u/rule 46A of the I T Rules, where the assesse company has furnished the vital information supporting the share application money. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed the written submissions and relied on the judicial decisions. We find the CIT(A) has considered

DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Varad Vinayak Textiles P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 998/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-3(2) Vs. M/S. Varad Vinayak Central Range – 3 Textiles P Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air 605, Business Classic, India Bldg, Nariman Chincholi Bunder Rd., Point, Mumbai – Malad (W) 400021. Mumbai – 400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1777G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Achal Sharma. Cit Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Achal Sharma. CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

material information. The A.O has discussed on the facts and statements recorded observed that the substantial addition was made on receipt of share application money by the three entities/group concerns in their hands as bogus share application money .Therefore the A.O. has made addition of the investment in bogus share ... finally deleted the protective addition in the hands of the assessee considering the facts of substantive additions on account of unexplained share application money u/sec68 of the Act was up held in the hands of group/recipient companies and allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the revenue

Royal Rich Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 1316/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1316/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Royal Rich Developers Dcit Cc- 4(4), Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, बनाम/ Building, Nariman Point, Mahavir General Store, 154, Vs. Mumbai. Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr2578J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2839/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit Cc- 4(4), Royal Rich Developers Central Range-4, Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India Building, बनाम/ C/O- Suresh Velji Faria, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mahavir General Store, Vs. 154, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave & TanzilFor Respondent: Shri Dharmveer Yadav, Ld
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

During the course of search of Shri Vinod Faria in his statement on oath recorded u/s 132(4) on 31.05.2008 had stated that, share application money received were accommodation entries and bogus. It was arranged by CAs to whom 8% commission was paid. He had surrendered

Drums Food International P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 568/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmandrums Food Vs. Pcit – 6 International Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 5Th Unit No. 912, 9Th Floor Floor, Aayakar Hubtown Solaris, N.S Bhavan, Mk Road, Phadke Marg, Andheri Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Surendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Surendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

time. Hence, the Assessment order was passed after full application of mind. 2. Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction us 263 with respect to Share Application money is not in accordance with law as the said issue was specifically enquired into by the Ld A. O. The AO has asked specific query ... shares issued at a premium as under: a) List of shareholders as on first and last date of F.Y.2014-15. b) List of Share Application money received. c) Form PAS 3 for allotment of shares along with Board Resolution and list of Allottee. d) Minutes of the Board meeting for allotment