← All Phrases

“shell company”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68620 judgments

The decision most relied on for shell company is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on shell 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.

Principal CIT v. Sreeleathers
448 ITR 332 · 2022 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Additions made by an Assessing Officer under Section 68 for unsecured loans or share capital/premium are perverse if based merely on an allegation of 'shell companies' without proper findings, especially when the assessee has provided evidence and lenders confirmed transactions through Section 133(6) notices.

CIT v. Varinder Rawlley
366 ITR 232 · 2014 · High Court
79
citing judgments

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by proving the identity and genuineness of the transaction, typically through account payee cheques, bank entries, and the creditor's PAN. The amount cannot be added as the assessee's income unless the department produces material linking the funds to the assessee or demonstrating the creditor's source flowed from the assessee, especially if the creditor is not under the assessee's control.

Major Metals Ltd. v. Union of India
19 Taxmann.com 176 · 2012 · High Court
54
citing judgments

When an unlisted company issues shares at an unjustifiably high premium to subscribers who lack the financial standing and creditworthiness, the entire transaction may be deemed not genuine, leading to the addition of the share capital and premium under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit.

PCIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex
89 Taxmann.com 80 · 2018 · High Court
46
citing judgments

The addition of share application money to the income of the assessee under Section 68 is not justified if the assessee has discharged the initial onus by providing complete particulars and documentary evidence of the creditor, and the Revenue has failed to prove otherwise. The Supreme Court has also dismissed the Revenue's SLP in this matter.

CIT v. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd.
263 ITR 623 · 2003 · High Court
36
citing judgments

An assessee must establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of subscribers to share capital. Furnishing income tax file numbers alone is insufficient to discharge this burden.

48(SC) 2. Principal Commission of Income Tax v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd.
96 Taxmann.com 602 · 2018 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The addition of share capital under Section 68 is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer issues summons to investor entities but receives no appearance, relying solely on submissions via DAK, raising doubts about investor identity and genuineness.

CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd.
306 ITR 35 · 2008 · High Court
26
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for share application money cannot be made solely on the basis that the money deposited in the bank account of a third party was the assessee's money, if there is no material to link the assessee with the deposit.

Judgments citing shell company

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. Sawansukha Jewellers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1615/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs2477R Co No. 32/Kol/2024 (Airing Out Of The Ita No. 1615/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2018-19) Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700017, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

last five to six years. Thereafter, the ld. AO after citing the investigation wing report noted that the Tanman Jewels Pvt. ltd. is a shell company and accordingly, sale made by the Tanman Jewels Pvt. Ltd. were considered as bogus sales. Consequently, the corresponding purchases made by the assessee ... assessee responded accordingly. Investigation by the Income Tax Department, Surat, revealed that Tanman Jewels Pvt. Ltd. and Saffron Gems Pvt. Ltd. were shell companies engaged in bogus transactions. The physical verification of their premises indicated no business activities conducted for several years. Financial analysis further supported the suspicion of bogus

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

above discussion and evidence brought on record through various investigation and enquiry it is evident that M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is a shell company which has no business activity and no existence. Thus, the unsecured loan shown by the assessee from M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is accommodation entry ... Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. and detailed enquiry conducted in the assessment proceeding. The assessee has accepted huge sum of money from the shell companies and the accepted the loan having no worth. Even the ld. AO has recorded the statement of the parties while making the addition. When the matter

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

above discussion and evidence brought on record through various investigation and enquiry it is evident that M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is a shell company which has no business activity and no existence. Thus, the unsecured loan shown by the assessee from M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is accommodation entry ... Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. and detailed enquiry conducted in the assessment proceeding. The assessee has accepted huge sum of money from the shell companies and the accepted the loan having no worth. Even the ld. AO has recorded the statement of the parties while making the addition. When the matter