Case Law Details
Case Name : Principal CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)
Appeal Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.29855/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/03/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Principal CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)
Hon’ble SC held practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the cloak of share capital/premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on the assessee since the information is within the personal know of the assessee. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfac
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
The decision of the Supreme Court ,it is submitted with respect, is too harsh and ambiguous. It has opened the doors of the corruption and harassment for the assessing officers and CIT(A).The Supreme Court ought to have specifically laid down the list of documents on production of which the AO should be prohibited from making the addition.The decision requires reconsideration or clarification to prevent harassment and corruption.
Why the topic is SC upheld addition of Share Capital / premium received from Kolkata companies ?. Mumbai company also there. Pls correct the topic
In 1986-87, the Inspection Div. of the CBDT had conducted a study of the then fly-by-night investment companies, chiefly in Kolkata and Mumbai. The fact that these entities were incorporated with bogus/fake shareholders was duly established with evidence. It was also established that officers of the department were involved in accepting the returns of these dubious entities without any inquiries while the said companies were assisted by bank officials for opening fake accounts in the names of non existent/ bogus individuals merely for receiving cash for investment as share capital in the investment companies floated in hundreds during the early 1980s.
The exhaustive report of the Inspection Div. was submitted to the then Chairman of the CBDT with the recommendation that the same be circulated among all the commissioners for remedial action in the cases of all investment companies and for initiating suitable vigilance action too.
The chairman disagreed and hushed up the report.
This judgement only highlights the findings of the Inspn Div and corroborates its recommendations. This also indicates that the modus operandi of introducing unaccounted cash through bogus or non-existent entities continues unabated as ever.