← 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

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhuabenswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 343/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.340, 342, 343, 344 & 345/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Architecture & Engineering Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Plot No.3443, Palasuni, Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aafca 8879 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, Respectively. 2. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Barred By 04 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 04 Days Each In Said Appeals & Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals Of The Assessee Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

liable to be deleted. 8. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the company like assessee company were just shell companies and their existence itself is questionable. It was the submission that he vehemently supported the orders of the AO and ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival ... submissions. The facts in the present case clearly show that at no point is the AO making any claim that the assessee is shell company. There is no allegation against the assessee company that the assessee is doing any financial irregularities. There is no claim that the assessee is providing

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 342/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.340, 342, 343, 344 & 345/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Architecture & Engineering Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Plot No.3443, Palasuni, Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aafca 8879 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, Respectively. 2. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Barred By 04 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 04 Days Each In Said Appeals & Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals Of The Assessee Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

liable to be deleted. 8. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the company like assessee company were just shell companies and their existence itself is questionable. It was the submission that he vehemently supported the orders of the AO and ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival ... submissions. The facts in the present case clearly show that at no point is the AO making any claim that the assessee is shell company. There is no allegation against the assessee company that the assessee is doing any financial irregularities. There is no claim that the assessee is providing

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 340/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.340, 342, 343, 344 & 345/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Architecture & Engineering Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Plot No.3443, Palasuni, Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aafca 8879 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, Respectively. 2. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Barred By 04 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 04 Days Each In Said Appeals & Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals Of The Assessee Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

liable to be deleted. 8. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the company like assessee company were just shell companies and their existence itself is questionable. It was the submission that he vehemently supported the orders of the AO and ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival ... submissions. The facts in the present case clearly show that at no point is the AO making any claim that the assessee is shell company. There is no allegation against the assessee company that the assessee is doing any financial irregularities. There is no claim that the assessee is providing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Ace Mega Structure Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

various financial years which is one of the group company of Reliance group. The AO observed that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is a shell company as per the Press ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 Release dated 08.06.2018 by Ministry of Finance. The AO has accepted part loans as genuine and made ... held as unexplained. 34. Another issue raised by the revenue is that the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was declared as Shell company by the press release issued by the Ministry of Finance dt.08.06.2018 and further no opportunity was given to the Ao to rebut the evidences filed

Ace Mega Structures Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

various financial years which is one of the group company of Reliance group. The AO observed that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is a shell company as per the Press ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 Release dated 08.06.2018 by Ministry of Finance. The AO has accepted part loans as genuine and made ... held as unexplained. 34. Another issue raised by the revenue is that the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was declared as Shell company by the press release issued by the Ministry of Finance dt.08.06.2018 and further no opportunity was given to the Ao to rebut the evidences filed