← 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

JCIT OSD-CC-7(4), Mumbai vs. Shalimar Houseing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4112/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 4112 & 4083/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-Cc-7(4) Vs. M/S. Shalimar Housing Room No. 659, Aaykar & Finance Ltd., Bhavan, Mk Road, 505, Shalimar Morya Mumbai – 400020. Park, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs6732N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B.K.Bagchi.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 06.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. B.K.Bagchi.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Finance Ltd, Mumbai. will not be sufficient for purpose of identification of subscriber company when there was material to show that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not discussed what is the material with him to show that ... creditor was a paper company. Further, in cases where there was high securities premium in the balance-sheets of the creditor parties, the Assessing Officer stated that the source of the same was not proved. However, this is a case where the assessee has received loans from the said parties

Rajhans Paper Company, Mumbai vs. ITO -14(2)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1237/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1237/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Rajhans Paper Company बिधम/ Ito, Ward-23(3)(2) C/O Shirish H. Shah & Co. ½, Mumbai. Vs. Mangrol Mansion 6, Rustom Sidhwa Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffr8622J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.12.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(A) Principles Of Natural Justice Violated 1. The Ld. Cit(A)-25, Mumbai Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Giving A Reasonable & Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard Before Passing The Order Conforming The Order Of The Income Tax Officer-14(3)(2), Mumbai(Ao). A.Y. 2009-10 2. The Learned (Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Appellant Has Not Disputed The Figure Of Unaccounted Out Of The Books Excess Stock At Rs.25,95,321/-, As Against The Figure Of Rs.18,14,908/- As Computed As Per Appellant’S Earlier Letter Dated 15.04.2009. (B) Addition U/S 69-Rs.25,95,321/-

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69

SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1237/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Rajhans Paper Company बिधम/ ITO, Ward-23(3)(2) C/o Shirish H. Shah & Co. ½, Mumbai. Vs. Mangrol Mansion 6, Rustom Sidhwa Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायी लेखा