← 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

Neha Cassettes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, (OSD), Kolkata

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

ITA 437/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.437/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Neha Cassettes Private Limited Vs Acit(Osd), Ward-1(4), Kolkata P-27, Princep Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcn 6212 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Avijit Ghoshal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059447340(1) For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Assessing Officer Insofar As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Categorically Mentioned In His Order That The Assessee Has Not Produce Enough Material Before The Assessing Officer To Explain The Nature Of Source Of Such Credits Being The Share Application Money Received By The Assessee. 3. In Reply, Ld.Cit-Dr Submitted That The Assessee Had Been Given Adequate Opportunity By The Assessing Officer & The Assessee Has Not Produced The Evidence.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

that the assessee has not produce enough material before the Assessing Officer to explain the nature of source of such credits being the share application money received by the assessee. 3. In reply, ld.CIT-DR submitted that the assessee had been given adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer ... assessee has not been able to produce the evidence. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that the assessee has received share application money from various alleged paper companies. The list of companies had also not been brought out by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) also observed

Jasmine Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1089/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1089/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2012-2013) Jasmine Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-9(3), Kolkata 1447/1, Madurdaha Road, West Bengal Pan No. :Aaccj 0563 G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Ranu Biswas, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.05.2023, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y.2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. Ranu Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 666 Days. In This Regard The Assessee Has Sworn In Affidavit That Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Passing Of The Appellate Order For Which The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal Before The Tribunal Within The Stipulated Time. This Contention Of The Assessee Is Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Admittedly The Ao Had Made Addition U/S.68 Of The Act In Respect Of Share Application Money Received

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Biswas, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 68

hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that admittedly the AO had made addition u/s.68 of the Act in respect of share application money received 2 to an extent of Rs.1,40,00,000/- because the assessee was unable to prove the identity of the creditors ... year preceding to the previous year in the bank of the assessee and consequently no addition in respect of the said share application money could be made during the impugned assessment year. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 4 of the order