CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.

333 ITR 100High Court2011#376 most cited

What is CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. authority for?

If an assessee provides the identity, address, PAN, and banking details of shareholders for share capital or application money received through banking channels, the Assessing Officer must conduct a thorough investigation beyond merely issuing unserved summons before making an addition under Section 68.

235

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. · Section 68 · share capital addition · share application money · Assessing Officer investigation · onus on AO · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of shareholders · PAN details · unserved summons · 333 ITR 100

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 183

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 131Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorbogus share capitalretraction of statementretracted statementsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumshare application moneypermanent account numberaddition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaddition under section 68section 131

Judgments citing CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee.” as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee.” as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX A…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -05, Delhi

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee.” as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 2…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX A…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX A…

Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 05, Delhi

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX A…

Geeta Babu Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 138/MUM/2026[AY 2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 292BSection 68

…me are appearing in books than department is free to reopen individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/c Creative World Telefilms Ltd.333 ITR 100 has held as under: "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders who's name are given to the Assessing Officer then the department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no dispute that the assessee had…

Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Rakesh Jain Vs Dcit - 26(1) Shop No. 29, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 126-128, Sheikh Menon Bandra, Mumbai St., Trimurti Estate, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Pan – Aaιρj7359P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt.28.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

…it cannot be termed as "bogus". The controversy is covered by the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd, vs. CIT, (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd, (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,, 1961neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." l. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Born-High Court)"The ques…

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.221, 226 & 227/M/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2019-20 & 2020-21 M/s. Kemox Corporation, House No.69/100, New Mavji Compound, Narpoli, Maharashtra – 421 302 PAN: AAFFK4685A (Appellant) DCIT-CC-3, Room No.12, A Wing, Vs.16th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Thane West, Maharashtra - 400604 (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.R. a/w Shri Ravi Gantra, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Prono…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…pplication/ share capital/ share premium cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act where the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by placing a reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms P. ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (BOM), CIT vs. vs. Pranav Foundations Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…pplication/ share capital/ share premium cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act where the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by placing a reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms P. ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (BOM), CIT vs. vs. Pranav Foundations Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…pplication/ share capital/ share premium cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act where the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by placing a reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms P. ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (BOM), CIT vs. vs. Pranav Foundations Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…pplication/ share capital/ share premium cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act where the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by placing a reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms P. ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (BOM), CIT vs. vs. Pranav Foundations Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Bharatiya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3850/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…tatement that all the lenders have sufficient own funds available with them to grant loans to the assessee. 6.3. It is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) wherein it was held as under: “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The…

Mohit Bharatiya, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2213/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…atement that all the lenders have sufficient own funds available with them to grant loans to the assessee. 6. 3. It is relevant to quote the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) wherein it was held as under: “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The…

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA (SS) NO. AY Assessee / Assessee Respondent 795/Mum/2025 2013-14 Dodhia Filaments Pvt Ltd. DCIT, CC -3 Room No. 12, A wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Thane (W) 796/Mum/2025 2014-15 797/Mum/2025 2015-16 69/100, New Mavji compound, Narpoli 798/Mum/2025 2016-17 799/Mum/2025 2017-18 Behind Ratan Talkies Bhiwandi 2189/Mum/2025 2013-14 Dodhia Synthetics Ltd., DCIT, CC -3 2190/Mum/2025 2013-14 House No. 98/2, Room No. 12, A wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Thane (W) 2200/Mum/202…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…hed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd., AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) wherein it was held as under: “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. Th…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 613/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…hed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd., AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) wherein it was held as under: “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. Th…