← 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

Mamta Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1534/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule
Section 10(38)Section 44A

submitted that an analysis of the penny stock companies showed that the net worth of such companies is negligible. In fact they are all paper companies with no actual business. The share prices have been artificially rigged with the help of entry operators. The cash is routed and the shares ... that the shares of “Prraneta” are penny stock as there is no actual business of the company, the said company is merely a paper company. The net worth of company is negligible as is in the case of a typical penny stock. The share price of the said company have

Mamta Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1442/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule
Section 10(38)Section 44A

submitted that an analysis of the penny stock companies showed that the net worth of such companies is negligible. In fact they are all paper companies with no actual business. The share prices have been artificially rigged with the help of entry operators. The cash is routed and the shares ... that the shares of “Prraneta” are penny stock as there is no actual business of the company, the said company is merely a paper company. The net worth of company is negligible as is in the case of a typical penny stock. The share price of the said company have

Ronit Capital Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6679/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6679/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ronit Capital बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(1) Management Ltd. 644, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. 233, Shreeji Industrial K. Road, Mumbai- Estate, Subhash Road, 400020. Jogeshwari (E)-400060. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9239D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 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)-9, Mumbai Dated 23.08.2019 For Ay. 2012-13 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.10,43,77,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.70,768/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Only Partly Complied With The Notice Issued By Him On 30.01.2015 & Therefore In View Of The Non-Compliance, He Framed Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Several Additions Totalling Rs 68.83 Crores, Which Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

Amount Net worth of Documents Page No. investor invested in the investor as submitted No. in the appellant per the paper company balance-sheet book (in Rs.) as on 31.03.2012 (in Rs.) 2,09,37,753  1 Rishi AAACR8467K 1,06,00,000 31.51 Share Application Form  Automation U99999MH1994PTC083972