← 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, Circle- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Akshay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2923/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Vs. M/S.Akshayinfrastructure Room No. 432, Pvt Ltd.102, 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Chsl, Aayakar Bhavan, Tilak Nagar, M.K. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai-400089 Pan/Gir No. : Aahca2331A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Ajaysingh&Yogeshjoijode.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Manoj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Cit(A) Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal. 1."On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs2,03,00,000/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Merely Relying On The Submissions Made By The A.R. Of The Assessee & On The Basis Of

For Appellant: Mr.AjaySingh&YogeshJoijode.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Manoj Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Officer (AO) on perusal of the ITA Nos. 2923/Mum/2022 M/s Akshay Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. financial statements found that the assessee has received share application money of Rs.2,03,00,000/- towards 32,480 preference share of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs 615/- per share from M/s Vidhata ... Mumbai. based on the facts and submissions dealt atpage 23 para 3.8 to 3.14 of the order and held the receipt of the share application money as unexplained credit as the assessee has not satisfied the ingredients of provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act and made addition

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sidh Granites Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 996/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Central Circle-2(3) Vs. M/S Sidh Granites Pvt. Room No. 803, 8 Th Floor, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. Pratishtha Bhavan, 21, 155B, Rabindra (Annexe), M.K.Road, Sarahi Burra Bazar, Churchgate, Kolkata – 400007 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecs2639G Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Anil Kumar Das Respondent By : Vimal Punamiya Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-48, Mumbai, Dated 06.01.2023 For A.Y. 2018- 19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Bogus Unsecured Loan Of Rs. 8,82,00,000/- Treated As Unexplained Cash Credit In The Books Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Alter, Modify, Rectify, Substitute Or Otherwise Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal At Or Before The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 3. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That On The Grounds Stated Above, The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A), Mumbai, May Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Restored.”

For Appellant: Anil Kumar DasFor Respondent: Vimal Punamiya
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 148Section 68

received. However, the AO stated that loan creditors companies were engaged in providing accommodation entries to different beneficiaries in the form of loan, share application money, purchases etc. and these facts were stated in their statement recorded during the course of investigation. The AO stated that assessee has failed

Ratnam Jute Pvt Ltd, Rajam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 212/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ratnam Jute (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-1, Palakonda Road, Ward-3 Rajam, Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr4024P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053339971(1), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Private Limited Company, Doing Business In Trading Of Raw Jute In The Name & Style Of 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

respectively, aggregating to Rs.7,50,00,000/- in M/s KVR Industries Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of the assessee company, towards share application money. During the F.Y.2010-11, the assessee withdrew the share application money of Rs.7,50,00,000/- from the sister concern, M/s KVR Industires Ltd and advanced Rs.2

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Priyanshi Textile Private Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.199/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Priyanshi Textile Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), C/2, Plot No.74-79, Kim Sayan Vs. Surat, Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Road, Sunrise Interagated Textile Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Park, Kareli, Olpad, Surat- Gate, Surat-395001 394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy 4125 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Nfac/Ld. Cit(A) For Short] Dated 30.04.2022, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,72,33,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The Act As The Assessee Has Failed To Prove Bona Fide Of The Transaction Within The Meaning Of Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,08,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Share Premium U/S 68 Of The Act, Since The Assessee Failed To Prove The Source Of Source.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

assessee has shown through documentary submissions that the existing individual directors / shareholders had invested in the company, as loan, as well as share application money. For Haresh L. Rudakiya, Rs.49,08,150/- advanced to the assessee, during current year included Rs.36,00,000/- towards share application money and similarly ... other two individuals Mr. Nitesh V Makrubia, Rs.45,35,150/- advanced to the assessee in current assessment year included Rs.36,00,000/- towards share application money and for Mr. Prashant Hadiya Rs.49,84,700/- advanced in the current assessment year included Rs.36,00,000-, as share application money. Thus