← 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

Veritas (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1896/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1896/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Veritas (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) 701, Embassy Centre, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, Air India Building 400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1654J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gaurav Kabra Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2019 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A, R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. First Of All, We Will Deal With The Ground No. 2 & 3, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao To Have Made An Addition On Account Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Rs.1,93,43,532/- (On Account Of Share Application Money) & Rs.1,32,99,750/- (On Account Of Guarantee Commission) & Are Noted To Be Emanating From The Transfer Pricing Order (Tpo) Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar, The Tpo Order Is Bad In Law Because The Assessee Has Filed The Original Return Of Income On 29.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

action of the AO to have made an addition on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.1,93,43,532/- (on account of share application money) and Rs.1,32,99,750/- (on account of Guarantee Commission) and are noted to be emanating from the Transfer Pricing Order (TPO) dated