← 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- 6(2), Lucknow vs. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 403/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.403/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2) 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Complex, 3Rd Floor, Lucknow-226001. V. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt Ltd 24, Eldico Greens, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Arvpm1497R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 24.09.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. Whether On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Erred In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.6,34,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act To Commission Income Calculated At 1% Without Appreciating That The Assessee Had Failed To Furnish Satisfactory Explanation With Regard To Identify Of The Parties, Source & Genuineness Of The Transaction 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As & When Need To Doing So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. In This Case, Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Was Passed By The Assessing Officer Whereby The Assessee'S Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.6,34,42,150/-. Thereafter, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Total Credit Entries Of Rs.9.84 Crores & Matching Debit

For Appellant: Shri Raghunath Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 150Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष

Kiwi Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 782/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.782/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kiwi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.…………………..……..…………………....Appellant 16 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 8Th Floor, Kol-13. [Pan: Aaeck1653Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Niraj Mangla, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac Dated 07.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2013–14 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act Based On Information That The Assessee Had Received A Sum Of ₹1.30 Crores During Fy 2012–13 From Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Alleged To Be A Paper Company Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries. The Ao Analysed The Bank Statement & Financials Of Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Concluded That The Said Receipt Represented Unexplained Credit. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148, The Assessee Filed Its Return

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

information that the assessee had received a sum of ₹1.30 crores during FY 2012–13 from Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd., alleged to be a paper company engaged in providing accommodation entries. The AO analysed the bank statement and financials of Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the said receipt

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

price reaches the desired level the beneficiary who bought the shares at a nominal price, is made to sell it to a dummy Paper company of ITA No.321 & 322/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 9 the operator. For this, unaccounted cash is provided by the beneficiary which is routed through ... layers of paper companies by the operator and finally is parked with the dummy paper company that will buy the shares.” 12.2 Thereafter, ld. AO confronted the assessee to submit details on six counts which has been submitted by the assessee and brief summary of such details has been reproduced

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

price reaches the desired level the beneficiary who bought the shares at a nominal price, is made to sell it to a dummy Paper company of ITA No.321 & 322/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 9 the operator. For this, unaccounted cash is provided by the beneficiary which is routed through ... layers of paper companies by the operator and finally is parked with the dummy paper company that will buy the shares.” 12.2 Thereafter, ld. AO confronted the assessee to submit details on six counts which has been submitted by the assessee and brief summary of such details has been reproduced

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Kumar Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 192/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2019-20 Acit-24(1), Ramesh Kumar Jain, 601, 6Th Floor, B-502, Oberoi Skyheight, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Cross Road Lokhandwala, Lalbaugh, Parel, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan : Adipj4196P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rushabh Mehta For Revenue : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-48, Mumbai [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 29-11-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, holding that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation loan entry taken from a paper company, namely, M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. Further, interest on such loan paid by the assessee amounting to Rs. 37,23,906/- was also disallowed ... assessee was reopened and has relied upon the statement of Shri Mehta where he has admitted that M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd is a paper company. Further, summons u/s. 131 of the Act were issued to the Directors of M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd., however, they have not appeared before

Wwics Estates Private Limited, Mohali vs. The DCIT/ACIT, TDS, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 654/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.654/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Wwics Estates Private Limited Dcit / Acit Tds बनाम/ Vs. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6 Sector 17 Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacw-3524-A / Ptlw-10174-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 03-10-2022 In The Matter Of An Order Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 201(1) & (Ia) On 23-03-2022 Raising Certain Demand Against The Assessee. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 44A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Shri Satish Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

price reaches the desired level the beneficiary who bought the shares at a nominal price, is made to sell it to a dummy Paper company of the operator. For this, unaccounted cash is provided by the beneficiary which is routed through a few layers of paper companies by the operator ... finally is parked with the dummy paper company that will buy the shares.” ITA-303/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 10 12.2 Thereafter, ld. AO confronted the assessee to submit details on six counts which has been submitted by the assessee and brief summary of such details has been reproduced