← 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

Winner Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2189/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2189/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Winner Tradecom Pvt. Limited,……..…………Appellant 2/6, Sarat Bose Road, Suite-308, Central Plaza, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aabcw0321N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer, ……………………………...Respondent Assessment Unit, Ward-6(2), Income Tax Department, Nfac, Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 68

upholding the re-assessment order dated 04.01.2024 passed on the alleged information from Insight Portal about the assessee’s getting accommodation entry from a shell company M/s Sankalp Vincomn Pvt. Ltd. erred in not considering that the information and documents found from a third party and used against the assessee ... found that assessee has received Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s. Sankalp Vincom Pvt. Limited, during financial year 2017-18, which is a shell company lacking genuineness and creditworthiness”. The assessee gave its reply by saying that the assessee-company has not received any amount from the shell companies, more particularly