← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi vs. Apoorva Leasing Finance and Investment Company Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Apoorva Leasing Finance & Central Circle-3, Investment Company Ltd., Delhi. Third Floor, 13/331, Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031. Pan: Aabca0282A Co No.179/Del/2025 (Ita No.635/Del/2025) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Apoorva Leasing Finance & Vs. Dcit, Investment Company Ltd., Circle-3(1), Third Floor, 13/331, New Delhi. Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031. Pan: Aabca0282A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

assessment order passed in AY 2012- 13 or earlier years therefore the assessment order u/s148 passed subsequently holding the assessee as a shell company is not justified. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in relying on the order of NCLT ... NCLAT for holding that the assessee company is not a shell company, despite the fact that the order of NCLT and NCLAT was decided on technical grounds of unproper sanction and lack of opportunity. The said decisions were not on merits. 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances

Gdr Finance and Leasing P. Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Gdr Finance & Leasing Vs. Assessment Unit, Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 323, Agrawal Plaza, Nfac. Dda Community Centre, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi – 110 088. Pan: Aaacg2363D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri Rupinder Aggarwal, Shri R.P. Mall, Shri Uma Shankar, Ms Suman Verma & Ms Vidushi Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

disclosing total income at Rs.22,24,590/- from business profit and other sources. There was credible information that the company availed accommodation entries from shell company M/s K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.47,65,476/-. The case was reopened after following proceedings u/s 148A and taken ... Filatex Group on 01.09.2021, in which an entry operator named Shri Ankit Bhageria was also covered and that Shri Ankit Bhageria who controlled several shell companies had provided accommodation entries to beneficiaries. It has been alleged that such entries when analyzed Shri Ankit Bhageria had admitted during the statement

DCIT, Delhi vs. Sephan Lubricants Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7255/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7255/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant 348, Ara Centre, E2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 बिाम Vs. Sephan Lubricants P. Ltd., M-10, Sec-5, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi ...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaocs-1829-E अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18.07.2025, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 12 Days. The Revenue Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 12 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate
Section 132Section 147Section 68Section 69C

Shri Himanshu Verma and Shri Deepak Agarwal are established accommodation entry operators. The accommodation entry was provided by said operators to the assessee through shell company having no real business activity. 4. Shri Ankit Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted