← All Phrases

“paper company”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68582 judgments

The decision most relied on for paper company is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on paper company

(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.

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.

CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd.
42 Taxmann.com 339 · 2014 · High Court
252
citing judgments

For cash credit additions under Section 68, establishing the 'identity' of a creditor requires more than just producing PAN or assessment particulars; it necessitates demonstrating their actual business operations, place of work, staff, and public recognition. This rigorous standard ensures the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd.
251 ITR 263 · 2001 · Supreme Court
233
citing judgments

An increase in a company's subscribed share capital cannot be treated as the company's undisclosed income under section 68, even if the subscribers to the capital are found not to be genuine. The amount of share capital cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the company itself.

Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT
253 ITR 454 · 2002 · High Court
150
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of a statement or seized evidence that are favourable to the revenue while rejecting other parts favourable to the assessee without proper investigation; the evidence must be considered as a whole. Additions cannot be made based on mere presumptions or surmises without further inquiry.

CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd.
361 ITR 258 · 2014 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Amounts received from bogus share transactions, where a private limited company sells shares to unrelated parties at a huge premium and then repurchases them at a loss shortly after, are taxable as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such transactions lies solely on the assessee.

Judgments citing paper company

Anil Kumar Mittal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 58(7), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5298/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.5298/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2018-19) Anil Kumar Mittal, 458-466, Shambhu Nath Compound, Gali No. 8, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, G.T Road, Shahadra, Delhi 110095 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Addpm-5324-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(7), Vikas Bhawan, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri D.K. Anand, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.09.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Three Grounds Assailing Addition On Merits As Well As Assailing Validity Of Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Anand, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

Portal in different states with various GST numbers. Thus, M/s. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd. is a genuine company and not a paper company as alleged by the Department. The AO made addition of Rs.14,83,879/- on account of alleged 3 bogus purchases made by the assessee from

Sanjeeta Chatterjee, Dubai vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Noida

ITA 2242/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Central Circle-28, F-6, Second Floor, New Delhi. Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P Co No.114/Del/2018 (Ita No.2242/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, F-6, Second Floor, Central Circle-28, Vijay Chowk, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi Co No.114/Del/2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.298/16-17/Cit(A)-29 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 19.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10 Crore On Account Of (Paid - Up Share Capital, Share Premium & Security Premium) Credited In Its Books Of Accounts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Discharged Its Primary Onus To Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transaction During Assessment Proceedings.” 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

garb of share capital/premium shown to have been received from M/s Geemed Promoters P. Ltd. The appellant company was found to be only paper company which was engaged only in giving accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. Thereby, the unaccounted income of M/s MGC Estate P. Ltd. have been routed through

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Prabhu Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., Agra

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 131/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.130/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.131/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Prabhu Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 1/354, Transport Nagar Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra - 282001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcp-2659-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 68

therefore, the same was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68. 2.2 The assessee raised another loan of Rs.700 Lacs from alleged paper company by the name M/s Maa Bhagwati Enterprises (Prop. Shri Paras Kumar Parashar). Going by the admission made by proprietor of that entity