← 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

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1414/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1413/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1412/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

Yash -V-Jewels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1411/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1410/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1409/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

Commissioner of Income Tax by estimating addition at the rate of alleged commission income at 0.20% p.m. for Loans & Advances and 2% for Share Application money (Investments) during the captioned year. iv. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in upholding the proposition of the learned assessing

Garv Associates, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Garv Associates, Ito Ward -1(3), Faridabad B/105, Green Field Colony, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, Haryana 121010 Vs. Pan Aajfg 5926 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Revenue For : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Nfac, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2023 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Assessee, Except Ground No. 10, Does Not Want To Press Other Grounds Of Appeal Hence, Other Grounds Of Appeal Are Dismissed. Remaining Sole Effective Ground No. 10 Reads As Follows:- 10) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Interpreting Provision Of Section 68 After Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Matter In Respect Of Unsecured Loans Of Rs. 40,00,000/-, Raising The Following Questions:- I. Whether, 'First Proviso' Of 'Section 68' Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Squarely Covered Transaction In The Nature Of Unsecured Loans' Or Shall Restricted To Credits On Account Of 'Share Application Money', 'Share Capital', Share Premium Etc.? Ii. Whether, As Per Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, The Assessee Has Not Discharged Its Initial Onus To Prove: (1) Identity Of The Creditor Lenders; (2) Credit-Worthiness Of The Creditor Lender; & (3) Genuineness Of The Transaction. By Submitting Following Set Of Documentation:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, CA
Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 is squarely covered transaction in the nature of Unsecured Loans' or shall restricted to credits on account of 'Share Application Money', 'Share Capital', Share Premium etc.? ii. WHETHER, as per provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee has not discharged ... Pooja Equity Advisors. The ld. counsel submitted that the first proviso to sec 68 of the Act is restricted to credits on account share application money, share capital and share premium etc. and this does not apply to transactions in the nature of unsecured loans therefore the addition