← 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

Chandrani Compliments & Export (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2365/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2365/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandrani Compliments & Export (P) Ltd..........…...……………....Appellant 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aabcc3652J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata……..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri C. Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Very Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Stated The Chronological Events By Stating That The Return For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2012-13 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2012 Showing An Income Of Rs.67,5,030/-. Thereafter, The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 19.12.2014 By The Ld. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Wherein, The Income Of The

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

interest of Revenue for want of proper enquiries on the part of the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment on various issues viz. share application money including the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, charging of interest u/s 201(1A), rental income from the vehicles and depreciation thereupon

Blue Park Sea Foods Private Limited., Bhimavaram vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 515/VIZ/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.515/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Blue Park Sea Foods Private Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist, Central Circle, Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaccb 0689 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40Section 68

above questionnaire submitted the details before the Ld. AO. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO doubted the genuineness of the Share Application Money received by the assessee and the creditworthiness of the individual investors. Since no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee, the Ld. AO considered ... remand report observed that the assessee has not produced any concrete evidence regarding the sources and genuineness of share application money and the signature on the confirmation letters are not matching with the signature with the balance sheet filed with respect to the shareholders. Further, the Ld. AO also observed

ACIT, C.C.-1., Raipur vs. M/S Ace Trexim Pvt.Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 441/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.441/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit(Central Circle)-1, Raipur…………............…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Ace Trexim Pvt. Ltd.…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Abipn, House No.11, Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur(C.G), Chhatisgarh. [Pan: Aagca5027N] Appearances By: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Ar & Saurabh Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.01.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,20,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Funds Of The Said Amount Received From M/S Solvent Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Not Appreciating The Reliability Of The Relevant Substantial Information Received From Investigation Wing Of Kolkata & Also Erred In Ignoring That The Assessing Officer Had Made Efforts To Confront Such

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Investigation Wing and acted on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. It was also submitted that the amount was neither received as share application money nor as secured or unsecured loans or any advance. That the amount was received against sale of shares by the assessee. 6. We find that

Basuki Vyapaar Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 184/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.184/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Basuki Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaccb6156B) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Kolkata. …………….. Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit (Dr) Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 23.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 09.01.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ito, Ward-8(1) Dated 08.03.2016. 2. When The Case Was Called Or None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In The Past Also When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 06.06.2023 & 23.08.2023, There Was No Compliance. We Thus

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

were duly served upon the assessee. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO noted that assessee has received share application money pending for allotment to the tune of Rs.2,29,87,750/-. Though the assessee filed certain details but Ld. AO had not satisfied and he proceeded to make

Vidhya Devi, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8198/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Vidhya Devi Dcit C/O M/S. Rra Tax India, D- Vs Central Circle 28, South Extension, Part-I, Noida New Delhi Pan No.Asbpd0089B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey,Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Arising Out Of Order Dated 23.10.2018 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4 (For Short “Cit(A)”), Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Both On Jurisdictional Issue As Well As On Merits, However, At The Very Outset We Proceed To Decide The Jurisdictional Issue Raised In Ground No.1, As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter.

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

fresh share capital has been introduced in the company at securities premium. Further, unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,09,62,682/- and share application money amounting to Rs. 43,65,000/-have also been taken by the company during the F.Y. 2009-10. The said funds have been further ... name of 'Golf View' at Noida. The said funds have been sourced from different companies in the form of share capital, share application money and unsecured loans in the form of accommodation entries. The perusal of the balance sheets reveals that this company has ploughed back unaccounted money