← 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. Aarya Organic Foods & Ayurvedic Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3004/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.3004/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2012-13 M/S. Aarya Organic Vs. Ito Foods & Ayurvedic Ward – 1(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 504, Pratap Chamber-2, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 Pan- Aahca 9363 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-I, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

which assessee inter alia submitted that during the year only Rs.93,52,000/- was increased in share capital and balance amount was pending share application money which were received in earlier year. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the parties on the addresses furnished by the assessee from whom ... wherein the action of the AO has been upheld, CIT(A) noted as under: “Sh. Sanjeevji: He has paid Rs.4,34,400/- as share application money and premium thereon. The amount has been paid by way of cash. Though he has got Permanent Account Number as AIJPK5734C, however