← 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

Income Tax Officer, Bhawanipatna vs. Amr Infratech Private Limited, Lane No

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.62/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) C.O. No.05/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Bhawanipatna Vs Amr Infratech Pvt Ltd.,Irrigation Colony , Near Lane No.19, Bhawanipatna Pan No. : Aaica 3668 H .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal & Shri Mahendra Kr Agarwal, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 2 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 2 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

justified is deleting the order passed us 143(3)/147 dated 27.12.2019 by holding that Ms Kirlampudi Commece (P) Lt was a "Jamakharchi" or "paper company" was a fact, which cannot be said to have been in the knowledge of the appellant without appreciating the fact that detailed verifications were ... justified as deleting the order passed us 143(3)/147 dated 27.12.2019 without appreciating the fact that in the case of Jamkharchi or paper company, the fake documents were submitted before the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in lave

Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kanpur

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

ITA 575/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

Investments Ltd, on 10.10.2011. He analyzed the financial statement of M/s Jackson Investments Ltd., and came to the conclusion that it was only a paper company that did not have any real business on the ground. It had no prospects of growth or any future plan. The ld. AO concluded ... that the assessee had invested his hard-earned money of Rs. 11,30,000/- in the shares of a paper company that had no prospects of growth inspite of his long experience in the share market, which was completely against logic and reason. The ld. AO also noted that

Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd, Jalgoan vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2012/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: PendingITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1, Jalgaon E 2/1, Midc Area, Ahjantha Vs. Road, Jalgaon – 425003 Pan: Aadcp9598E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anchaliya Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Issue: “Whether Unsecured Loans Are Genuine & From Disclosed Sources.”

For Appellant: Shri Suresh AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

investment. However, search action in the Ranka Group, where the lender was also covered, has proved conclusively that Risa International Ltd is just a paper company used by the beneficiaries of Ranka Group to provide accommodation entries. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee the Ld. Counsel ... identity of the loan creditor Risa International Ltd is not proved and its creditworthiness was also is doubtful since Risa International is just a paper company used by the beneficiaries of Risa International Ltd to provide accommodation entries. We find the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made