← 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

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

pursuant to which a new company ' A Squared Elxsi Entertainment LLC, USA (A2E2)' has been formed. The assessee company claims paying of share application money to acquire shares of A2E2 which has not yet materialized. It is submitted that on allocation of equity shares of A2E2 to the assessee ... claim of the appellant of the payment amount to the Bank as an exceptional item of expenditure and also claiming the share application money as share of business loss, do not stand to legality of IT provisions as these expenditures are not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Classic Creations Impex Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4585/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 4585/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Cc – 7(3), M/S Classic Creations Impex Pvt. Ltd. बिाम K-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tex Centre R. No. 655, Aaykar Bhavan M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Next To Hdfc Bank), Chandivali, / Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-3350-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir Singh – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 12/04/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 19/12/2016. The Sole Ground Urged By The Revenue Read As Under: - In The Circumstances & On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,23,50,000/- Made By The Ao As Unexplained Cash Credit Received From M/S. Emma Auto Ancillary Pvt. Ltd. In The Form Of Share

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

made by the AO as unexplained cash credit received from M/s. Emma Auto Ancillary Pvt. Ltd. in the form of share application money u/s. 68 of the Act without considering the fact that the statement of Shri Satish Agrawal and other related concerns were recorded ... search action, statement of Shri Satish Agarwal (director of Assessee Company) was recorded wherein he could not provide the details of the share application money of Rs.349.50 Lacs as received by the assessee company during AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11. The said money was accepted to be unexplained cash credit

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

share subscription agreement, as entered into by the assessee company with the subscribers, clearly stated that the assessee was to use share application money for construction project and if project was not commenced within 5 years of share allotment, then such money was to be refunded to the shareholders ... later on. In my opinion, the appellant has complied with all the requirements to prove the genuineness of the amount received towards the share application money and the premium, identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditor by filing relevant documents. Further

ACIT, CC- 3, New Delhi vs. Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Faridabad

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

ITA 4401/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Central Circle-3, 14/3, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Village- Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad. Pan: Aaacj1872C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th April, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-23, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel/Tubes & Pipes & Erection Fabrication Work & Furnace Unit. It Filed Its Return Of Income 12.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,52,26,930/-. A Search & Seizure Proceedings U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Conducted In The Case Of M/S Mauria Udyog Ltd. & Its Group Concerns Including The Assessee & Residential/Factory Premises Of The Partners, Directors & Proprietors Of The Group On 7Th August, 2013. In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 12Th September, 2015 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,52,26,930/- Which Is The Same Income As Per The Original Return Of Income Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

original return of income filed. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has invested in share application money in the following two companies and has subsequently sold the shares the details of which are as under:- 3. In an attempt to establish the multi ... assessee. 5 6. The AO, however, noted that the assessee in his reply to the question asking to file details of share application money received, has stated that it has received share application money to the tune of Rs.13,01,395/- from Mr. Hemand Vinkatramani Lalith Raj, M/s Sneha Santosh