9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2025 (7) TMI 1126 - SCH - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Share premium - Transaction in the nature of Capital Account - violation of the provision of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act 1956 with respect to the utilization of the share premium account - addition of entire share premium received as unexplained cash credit as there was no justification for charging share premium and there was violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act 1956 - delay filling SLP Whether the money received as premium of share issued on account of a capital account transaction can give rise to income? As decided by HC 2024 (2) TMI 891 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Share premium received by issuance of shares is on capital account and gives rise to no income.We are satisfied that the closing balance and the opening balance of the share premium money only indicates that there is an increase in the share premium account by way of infusion of funds and not depletion. There is nothing to indicate that the assessee has used the share premium money to invest in shares. The Assessing Officers have failed to understand the difference between utilization of funds and creation of share premium account in the books of accounts for the share premium receipt HELD THAT - There is a gross delay of 271 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Even otherwise we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits. The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to a "gross delay of 271 days" in its filing, which was "not satisfactorily explained" by the petitioner. Additionally, the Court found "no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court." Consequently, the petition was dismissed both on grounds of delay and merits, and all pending applications were disposed of.
|
