← 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

Blue Chip Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5616/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalblue Chip Financial Services Vs Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(3) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 24, Dheeraj Heritage, 3Rd Floor, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 S.V. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054 Pan: (Aaacb2087R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt, Ca Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078465141(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “A) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of The Alleged Unaccounted Money In The Form Of Accommodation Entry From Shell Company M/S Anubhav Commosale Pvt Ltd To The Extent Of Rs 20,00,055/- Treating It As Unexplained Income U/S 68 Of It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of the alleged unaccounted money in the form of accommodation entry from shell company M/s Anubhav Commosale Pvt Ltd to the extent of Rs 20,00,055/- treating it as unexplained income u/s 68 of IT Act. 2 Blue Chip Financial ... Rs.20,00,055/- on 02.03.2012. Thus, totaling to Rs.65,00,000/-. The fact that Anubhav Commosale Private Limited is a shell company operated by accommodation entry providers of Kolkata i.e. Sri Jivendra Mishra, Sri Mithilesh Kumar Mishra and Sri Devesh Upadhyaya has been admitted by them in statement recorded