← 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, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 7283/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekita No:- 7283/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 205, 2Nd Floor, Samarpan, Central Circle-13, Chakala Link Road, New Delhi. Andheri East, Mumbai. Pan No: Aabcl3501H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. & Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

provided to the appellant. Further, no corroborative evidence is brought on record by Assessing Officer to prove that share capital/ share premium/ share application money/ unsecured loan is accommodation entry. Besides, appellant has discharged its onus and submitted all the documentary evidence in respect of share capital / share premium ... 7283/Del/2017 Lizer Cylinders Ltd. share application money in support of the genuineness of the investment. The details submitted in this regard by the appellant have also been made part of order by Assessing Officer. It is also undisputed fact that the director of the appellant companies have never any statement