← 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

Hartron Sase Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 1064/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

evidence/incriminating and other materials as in the reasons it is not clear as to whether the alleged accommodation entries were unsecured loan or share application money or any other mode of bogus entry and from which entity/company alleged transaction was under taken, which could be said to be a clear ... assessee took accommodation entry of which amount and what was the mode of transaction/entry as to whether the same was unsecured loans or share application money or any other kind of bogus transaction which shows non application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the material received by him from

DCIT, CC- 1, Faridabad vs. Sadjyoti Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection

ITA 3854/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the aggregate addition of Rs.3,18,00,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of share application money received by the assessee company as the assessee company has discharged its onus as per section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, more

Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mangal Deep, G.E. Road, Raipur-1. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacct6932F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

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

M/S. Lado Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Bela (Rangpar), Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

hands. Further, it is also observed that all these share-holders, had invested substantial amount of money by way of unsecured loan or share application money but barring only three persons, all of them are having income less than 3.00 lacs as per the copy of return filed by them ... inquiry about true nature and source of sum found credited in books of assessee, even if same was credited as receipt of share application money. In the case of Nisha Sharma146 taxmann.com 209 (Jabalpur - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J B Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.1,86,00,000/- on account of bogus share application money u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, after duly considering the facts brought on record that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to prove the credit ... been amended to provide that if a closely held company fails to explain the source of share capital, share premium or share application money received by it to the satisfaction of the assessing officer, the same shall be deemed to be the income of the company under section

Glee Pharma Private Limited, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Cuttack

ITA 171/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Pahanawa Pahanawa Associates Associates Pvt Pvt Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Jt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Flat No.606, Vishnu Ltd., Flat No.606, Vishnu Tax, Tax, Range Range-1, Block, Block, Balaji Balaji Complex Complex Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Housing Society Housing Society, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecp 8304 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ar Saroj Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/10 0/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi , Nfac, Delhi Dated 3.3.2023 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 015-16. 2. Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass
Section 269TSection 271E

business of readymade garments. During the ass garments. During the assessment year 2014 essment year 2014-15, the assessee had received share application money had received share application money of Rs.59,50,000/ of Rs.59,50,000/-. Out of the said P a g e 1 | 8 Assessment Year ... cheque and balance in cash. It was the submission that as the assessee was unable to issue shares, the assessee had returned the share application money in cash itself during the assessment year 2015-16. It was the submission that on account of repayment of share application money received

ACIT- CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Inter Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2518/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No. 662/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

partially confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.50.00 lakhs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received from M/s Zenstar Marketing P Ltd. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld Inter Publicity Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A) in granting relief ... transactions remained unexplained. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to prove the cash credits. It was also show caused as to why such share application money received should not be added to the total income of the assessee. 7. In response to the same, the assessee furnished various documents

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Morpan Merchant Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2515/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2515/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

received share capital/share premium from such paper companies. During the year under consideration, the assessee had received a sum of Rs.9.00 crores as share application money from a company named M/s Zenstar Marketing P Ltd. Hence the AO proposed to assess the above said amount as unexplained cash credit ... assessing officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The AO, after referring to various case laws, held that the share application money received by the assessee is unexplained. Accordingly he assessed the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Before

Shark Packaging (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 2163/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

report and other material as in the reasons it is not clear as to whether the alleged accommodation entries were unsecured loan or share application money or any other mode of bogus entry and from which entity/company alleged transaction was under taken, which could be said to be a clear ... company/entity through which the assessee received alleged accommodation entry, date of transaction, nature of transaction viz as to whether it was share application money or unsecured loan or any other kind of transaction and from which entity or company the assessee received alleged entry or undertaken transaction. From the reasons

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8310/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

report and other material as in the reasons it is not clear as to whether the alleged accommodation entries were unsecured loan or share application money or any other mode of bogus entry and from which entity/company alleged transaction was under taken, which could be said to be a clear ... company/entity through which the assessee received alleged accommodation entry, date of transaction, nature of transaction viz as to whether it was share application money or unsecured loan or any other kind of transaction and from which entity or company the assessee received alleged entry or undertaken transaction. From the reasons

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

report and other material as in the reasons it is not clear as to whether the alleged accommodation entries were unsecured loan or share application money or any other mode of bogus entry and from which entity/company alleged transaction was under taken, which could be said to be a clear ... company/entity through which the assessee received alleged accommodation entry, date of transaction, nature of transaction viz as to whether it was share application money or unsecured loan or any other kind of transaction and from which entity or company the assessee received alleged entry or undertaken transaction. From the reasons

Habitat Housing Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1779/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23/12/2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 23/12/2016, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the unjustified, unlawful and unwarranted addition of Rs. 8,51,90,000/- on account of Share Application Money u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961; Habitat Housing Finance Ltd. vs. ITO 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... been received from the said applicant. Further, the assessee has also submitted an unauthenticated bank statement of the applicant party from whom the share application money claimed to have been received: On going through the bank statement of M7s Habitat Alliances Ltd., It is seen that the funds have been

Starpoint Dealers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 661/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

transactions remained unexplained. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to prove the cash credit. It was also show caused as to why such share application money received should not be added to the total income of the assessee. 7. In response to the same, the assessee furnished various documents ... assessing officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The AO, after referring to various case laws, held that the share application money received by the assessee is unexplained. Accordingly he assessed the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 9. Before

ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi vs. J H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH

M/S. Godwin Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1179/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 68Section 69

alleged unaccounted cash payment to MIs Karma Decor (Contractor) Rs.8,20,000/- 2 ITA No.1179/Del./2017 Addition u/s 68 holding the amount of share application money received by the appellant, as unexplained money/cash credits Rs.27,06,000/- Total Rs.35.26.000/- Various findings made and conclusions drawn by the authorities below ... matter which does not need any interference on our part. Hence, we uphold the order of the authorities below. 7. Apropos issue of share application money : On this issue, addition was made on account of share application money received for which proper details were not provided before

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikas Diamond Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4129/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 3351 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Diamond Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 0491 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue For : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit-Xxxiii, New Delhi Both Dated 24.02.2014 For Ay 2008-09. Since Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Submitted That Regarding Ground No. 1 To 3 Of Revenue The Facts Are Similar & Identical Therefore Both The Appeals Are Being Adjudicated By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta

Rekha Verma and Shri Varun Verma as to whether these impugned investments are shown in the asset side and if allege share application money is found reflected therein then he was directed to delete the addition. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has no power under ... loan on the interest at the rate of 6% per annum in F.Y. 2005-06 and requested these unsecured loan be converted into share application money. The Ld. Assessing Officer has reported in the remand report that these names are not in the list of unsecured lender in the balance

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 3351 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Diamond Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 0491 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue For : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit-Xxxiii, New Delhi Both Dated 24.02.2014 For Ay 2008-09. Since Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Submitted That Regarding Ground No. 1 To 3 Of Revenue The Facts Are Similar & Identical Therefore Both The Appeals Are Being Adjudicated By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta

Rekha Verma and Shri Varun Verma as to whether these impugned investments are shown in the asset side and if allege share application money is found reflected therein then he was directed to delete the addition. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has no power under ... loan on the interest at the rate of 6% per annum in F.Y. 2005-06 and requested these unsecured loan be converted into share application money. The Ld. Assessing Officer has reported in the remand report that these names are not in the list of unsecured lender in the balance

A and R Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. A & R Buildmart Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., 11/8, Mandir Ward-1(1) Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110 016 Pan No. Aahca 2794 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2023

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2 2. During the year under consideration (FY 2008-09) the company has received only total share application money of Rs. 30 Lacs (including share premium of Rs. 27,00,000/-), however Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 60 Lacs as share application money ... also not justifiable since during the proceedings while the assessee has produce documents and evidences against the share application money received of Rs. 30,00,000/- the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored to the reply and evidence which was produced before him. To prove the genuineness, identity & creditworthiness of actual

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 258/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,20,54,200/- on account of introduction of share application money treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that genuineness & Creditworthiness of foreign entities from which these funds

Namita Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

ITA 2598/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 133(6)Section 68

Learned CIT(A), we clearly observe that in these case issue was of alleging the allotment of Shares by assessee company against share application money and share premium and the AO made addition under section ITA No.2596 & 2598/Del/2022 Smt. Namita Bajaj and Smt. Lalita Bajaj ... established by the share application and premium recipient assessee company. But in the present case, the assessee has not received any share application money or premium from the investor but the impugned transaction in the present case pertains to sale of investment/shares by the assessee to the other entities