← 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

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

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 130/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Udai Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/JPR/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

For Appellant: Sh. C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153C

high share premium and are almost exclusively utilizing all this capital for extending loans & advances and/or investing in unlisted equities. This is typical of paper companies that provide accommodation entries out of bogus unsecured loans and share premium in their accounts. Also, wild and unexplained fluctuations in the declared turnover ... received till date which also further strengthens the fact that the company is does not exist at the address and company is only a paper company. 5.7 In view of the above discussion and evidence brought on record through various investigation and enquiry it is evident that M/s Inner Mercantile

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Udai Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1400/JPR/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153C

high share premium and are almost exclusively utilizing all this capital for extending loans & advances and/or investing in unlisted equities. This is typical of paper companies that provide accommodation entries out of bogus unsecured loans and share premium in their accounts. Also, wild and unexplained fluctuations in the declared turnover ... received till date which also further strengthens the fact that the company is does not exist at the address and company is only a paper company. 5.7 In view of the above discussion and evidence brought on record through various investigation and enquiry it is evident that M/s Inner Mercantile