← 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

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6092/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Dcit, Vs Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Circle-13(2), Company With Unlimited Liability), New Delhi. Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. Pan-Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri V.K.Garg, Adv. & Praveen Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-5, New Delhi Dated 26.04.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the investments made in share application money and domestic subsidiary companies are to be excluded for computation of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D in view of the ratio laid down ... from total interest and from total investments, it excluded investment in said foreign subsidiary, investments in non-dividend yielding companies including investments in share application money. (For Computation, Refer PB Page No. 32). 1.6. Ld. CIT(A), following the order of his predecessor in AY 2012-13, directed

Emm Aar Tourism Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 5790/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 Emm Aar Tourism P. Ltd. Ito Ward 8(2), New Delhi 10685, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aacce 1918 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shikar Garg, Ca Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-24 New Delhi Dated 11.04.2019 For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Sole Legal Ground Of Assessee Is As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao For Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. Assessee Representative Submitted That For Ay 2010-11 The Assessee Submitted Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 46,894/- Which Was Processed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. Drawing Our Attention Towards Pages 27 To 32 Of Assessee Paper Book The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessing Officer Received Information From The Investigation Wing Which Conducted Search & Seizure Operation On 18.11.2015 On Pradeep Kumar Jindal Group. He Further Elaborated That On Receipt Of Information The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Initiated Of Reassessment Proceedings On 29.03.2017 & Obtained Approval Of Acit As Well As Pcit On The Very Same Date. The Ld. Ar Drawing Our Attention Towards Page 28 Of The Approval Note Submitted That The Ld. Acit While Granting Approval Noted “Yes, It Is A Fit Case” & The 1

For Appellant: Shri Shikar Garg, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

When this fact is examined in the light of the completed assessment of the assessee u/s 143 (3), all the documents concerning share application money, now available at pages 1 to 30 of the paper book, were supplied to the AO. This fact has not been taken into consideration