“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

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,51,89,000/- made by the AO on account of share application money received by the assessee company. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred ... assessee group namely, Shri Aman Jain and Shri Sameer Goyal and Shri Shailesh Ghanshyam Parab, Director of Om Energy Limited and hence the share application money received from the companies involved in all these appeals are bogus and hence the AO has rightly treated the amount as Realtime Marketing

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1838/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,63,00,000/- made by the AO on account of share application money received by the assessee company. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred ... addition of unexplained credits amounting to Rs. 14,83,00,000/-, received from Om Energy Limited on account of share capital/ share premium/ share application money. Realtime Marketing & ENN VEE Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DCIT- CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1837/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 611/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

ITA Nos.610 & 611/Bang/2024 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore Page 1 of 37 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

ITA Nos.610 & 611/Bang/2024 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Florence Dealer Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 837/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

documents furnished by the assessee. It was also pointed out before the CIT(A) that the assessee has received share application money from the four share subscribers, the details of which is as under: Name, Address & PAN of the Allottees No. of Shares Total allotted Amount (Rs.) Vardhaman Textiles ... company has paid Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the fund received from Aakruti Infrarealty Pvt, Ltd on account of share application money. Balance Sheet, Income Tax Acknowledgement for the Asst Year 2012-13, highlighted Bank statement, Identity Proof of the directors and source of Fund certificate of Swift Realcon

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

Oasis Jewels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

year. The Ld. AR submitted that the reasons do not specify the real nature of transaction as to whether it is unsecured loan, share application money or share capital, share premium, sales, repayment of loan advanced by the assessee in the past or that of refund of consideration by seller

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 43

well as CIT(A) erred in not properly appreciating the factual position. 8 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of share application money of Rs.1,87,50,000/- as appellant's income. The said share application moneys have been received from three applicants and are supported ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without putting to the assessee whatever doubts he had about the receipt of share application moneys. He drew adverse conclusion without giving the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard. 10. The levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C is not correct

Sachdev Steel Works Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1316/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1316/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd….….…….…......................…...……………....Appellant Room No.18B, First Floor, Karnani Estate, 209, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, West Bengal-700017. [Pan: Aadcs7342D] Vs. Ito, Circle-1(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.2,48,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Treating The Share Application Money Received By The Assessee As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee Invoking Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Assessment Order To Submit That The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The I.T.A. No.1316/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd Assessee Had Received Share Application/Share Allotment Money From The Following Three Parties: Name Of The Applicants Amount Received Bharat Bhushan Sachdev Huf 3000000/- Shangrila Builders Pvt. Ltd. 4500000/- Spoxy Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 17300000/- Total 24800000/-

Section 250Section 68

assessee in this appeal has agitated against the confirmation of addition of Rs.2,48,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the share application money received by the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. 3. At the outset ... identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction, the assessee furnished the necessary documents and explained that no fresh share application money was received from the above-noted share subscribers. That the above-noted share subscribers were the group companies/related parties of the assessee company. That there

ITO Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. Poltavsky- Tps Power Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4884/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37Section 68

submissions of the assessee has dealt with various additions made u/s. 68 of the Act individually. The CIT(A) has given breakup of share application money 4 received by the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 against which shares were allotted during financial year 2009-10 i.e. relevant ... impugned assessment year and also the share application money received during the relevant period. The details of breakup of share application money are given in para 4.6 of the impugned order. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,34,50,000/- observing that the AO has added opening

Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

were made from interest free funds available with the assessee. See: Reliance Industries Ltd., (supra). The assessee had made investment by way of share application money in one of its foreign subsidiaries i.e., A.N. Coffeeday. The investment which was made

The DCIT, 2(1), Indore vs. M/S. Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

ITA 439/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 14ASection 178

No.2: Without prejudice to the above ground, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in considering amount of Rs 36.45 crores relating to share application money pending allotment wh calculating the total investment amount for calculation of disallowance to be made interest expense towards investment. The appellant craves leave ... appellant that Rs. 85 Crores was received by th appellant in AY 2008-09 from holding company Entertainment Wor Developers P. Ltd. towards share application money between 12.04.07 ar 16.08.07, and M/s Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd it was use in investment in shares of subsidiary and oth companies

M/S. Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

ITA 398/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Section 14ASection 178

Shree Radhey Krupa Concast (India)Pvt.Ltd, Anantapur vs. Dy.CIT-6, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

ITA 129/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shree Radhey Krupa Concast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 1 &7, Gollapuram, Village-Hindupur, Anantpur (Ap) Pan: Aancs5342M . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Rakesh Garg [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

unexplained cash credit in the event of assessee’s failure to establish threefold attributes of section 68 of the Act in relation to share application money claimed to have received from Mr Vijaykumar Agrawal and (2) additional of ₹ 29,61,959/- u/s 41(1) of the Act owning to assessee

Ayog Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be rejected

ITA 4527/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalayog Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 3, Chintami Plaza Building, Shokvan, Shiv Vallabh Road, Dahisar, Mumbai-400 068 Pan: Aakca3628D ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Maharashtra - 400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 68

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4937/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashok Kumar, Vs. Pr.Cit, C/O M/S. Rrr Taxindia, Ghaziabad. D-28, South Extension Part – 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Abppy8405P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ghaziabad Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Dated 29-12-2016 As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding As Under While Passing The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

order under Section 263 of the Act. Sequitur is that the Assessing Officer could not have made an addition on account of share application money in the assessment proceedings under Section 1471148. Accordingly, the assessment order is not erroneous, Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised jurisdiction

M/S. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys, Thane vs. ITO-2(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 4195/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 46ASection 68

such, proceedings u/s 148 are liable to be quashed. II. Addition u/s.68 of Rs 1,68,00,000/- being share- application money received from M/s. Shyam Alcohol & Chemicals Ltd. 2. The Ld. AO erred in making addition of share application money of Rs 1,68,00,000/- received from