← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Linkwise Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6659/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanacit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Linkwise Marketing Private Ltd., New Delhi. Room No.107, Anand Jyoti Building, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 711 204 (West Bengal). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 26.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- Made By A0 On Account Of Cash Credit In The Form Of Shares.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,97, 50,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained share application money. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made ... assessment order. During assessment proceedings, various notices were issued to the assessee and in response, the assessee has submitted details of share application money received/share allotted/share premium etc. AO made the detailed enquiry of the submissions made by the assessee which is elaborated at pages 8 to 32 and found