{"id":64606,"date":"2026-09-23T15:53:33","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T10:23:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-6-mumbai-v-essar-agrotech-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2026-09-23T15:53:33","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T10:23:33","slug":"pcit-6-mumbai-v-essar-agrotech-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-6-mumbai-v-essar-agrotech-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT-6, Mumbai v. Essar Agrotech Ltd. (Bom.)(HC) [www.itatonline.org"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The assessee-company, engaged in agricultural activities, cultivation of flowers and vegetables and maintenance of mango orchards, filed its return for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of \u20b911,07,178. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) determining total income at \u20b911,90,82,890 by making, inter alia, an addition under section 68 towards share capital and share premium. The assessee had issued 22,50,000 equity shares of face value \u20b910 each at \u20b950 per share, including a premium of \u20b940 per share. The assessee furnished complete particulars of the subscriber, its financial statements, bank statements and the entire money trail explaining the source of investment. The subscriber had also disclosed the investment in its financial statements and its assessment had been completed under section 143(3) without any adverse finding regarding the investment in the assessee-company. The CIT(A) deleted the addition following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT<\/em> <\/i>(2017) \u00a0394 ITR 680 ( Bom)( HC) and the Tribunal upheld the deletion. The High Court held that, when the identity of the subscriber, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness had been established on the basis of the material on record, merely because shares were issued at a high premium could not justify an addition under section 68. As regards the Revenue’s reliance on the second proviso to section 68, the Court noted that the proviso was inserted with effect from 1-4-2013 and the present case related to A.Y. 2012-13; however, it was unnecessary to decide its retrospective applicability, since the factual finding of the Tribunal that the subscriber had received funds from various group companies and utilised the same for subscribing to the assessee’s shares satisfied the requirement contained in the proviso. The Court accordingly held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. (AY. 2012-13) (ITA No. 128 of 2020 dt. 29-07-2026)<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S.68: Cash credits \u2013 Share capital and share premium \u2013 Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of subscriber established \u2013 Assessee issued 22,50,000 equity shares of face value \u20b910 at \u20b950 per share, including premium of \u20b940 \u2013Merely because shares were issued at a high premium, addition under section 68 could not be made \u2013 Second proviso to section 68 inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2013 \u2013 A.Y. 2012-13 \u2013 Even assuming applicability, factual requirement stood satisfied as subscriber had explained source of investment received from group companies \u2013 No substantial question of law arose \u2013 Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [ S. 260A ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gO2","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64606"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64606\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64607,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64606\/revisions\/64607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}