← 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

Amit Realtors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.243/Ran/2023 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Amit Realtors Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Bokaro 20/1,Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue 1St Floor, Kolkata-700019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aafca 8143 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Patna-3, Dated 31.10.2023, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Adjournment Application For All The Years Under Consideration As Follows :- To The Hon’Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Db-Bench, Ranchi Date:04.10.2025 Respected Sir, Sub: Appeal In The Case Of Amit Realtors Pvt. Ltd.-Ita No.243/Ran/2023: Assessment Year 2012-13 The Above Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On 06.10.2025. In This Connection It Is Submitted That The Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.M.Surana Is Out Of Kolkata & Shall Return On 06.10.2025. It Is Therefore Requested Your Honour To Kindly Allow A Short Adjournment & Oblige. For This Act Of Kindness The Petitioner As In Duty Bound Shall Every Pray. Yours Faithfully, (Abhishek Bansal, Fca) 3. It Must Be Mentioned Here That Said Mr. S.M.Surana Is Not A Senior Advocate Nor There Is Any Vakalatnama Has Been Filed In The Present Appeal. Thus, The Adjournment Application Of The Assessee Is Rejected. 4. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Sought Adjournment In These Cases On The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)

authorities below. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the AO has made addition in respect of share application money received from Kolkata based alleged shell company. A perusal of the assessment order in para 7 also shows that notice u/s.133 ... heard. The assessee shall produce the directors/responsible person of the said share applicant companies before the AO for examination and to prove the share application money received. Failure on the part of the assessee to produce such responsible persons, the ld. AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference

ITO, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Jujhar Construction & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Ito, Vs M/S Jujhar Construction & Ward 6(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd.,Near Pull Jawaddi, Ludhiana. Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcj1127H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

been received. Smt. Sangita Jain vs ITO in ITA No. 1817/Kol/2009 vide order dated 11.03.2016. The amount has ultimately been invested in the share application money of the company namely M/s G.S. Majestic Developers P Ltd. The assessee has vehemently argued and which has also substance in considering that ... received by M/s G.S Majestic Developers Private Limited from M/s Jujhar Construction and Travels Pvt Ltd and the same has been shown as share application money received by the Company. The share application money or share application advance is distinct from 'loan or advance'. Although share application money