← 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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekito, Ward 1 (1), Vs. M/S. Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. D-62, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Aagca4596C) Co No.152/Del/2017 (In Ita No.2749/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), D-62, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Aagca4596C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi [Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 14ASection 68

Crayons Advertising Pvt. Ltd, the balance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- has been confirmed by the party as a payment of share application money instead of loans & advance. It is a matter of change in grouping of the amount in Balance Sheet of the company. The company have not received ... Omni Media Communication Pvt. Ltd. the balance amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been confirmed by the party as a payment of share application money instead of loans and advances. It is a matter of change in grouping of the amount in balance sheet of the company. The company

Income Tax Officer, Main Building vs. Priya Estate Developers Private Limited, Abhiramapuram, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1244/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1244/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito M/S. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-5(2) #11, Bashyam Basheer Ahmed Road Vs. Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Pan No. Aahcp-5405-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.37.23 Crores on the date of the valuation on the pretext that the same was in the nature of share capital advanced / share application money. The Ld. CIT-DR also questioned the valuation of IEPL on the ground that DCF based valuation was erroneous since the assessee had not carried ... report of CS Suresh has not considered the outstanding liability and the liabilities have been treated as share capital advance / share application money which is contrary to facts on record. The Ld. CIT-DR also questioned the valuation of IEPL on the ground that DCF based valuation was erroneous since