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.

ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Elegant Creations P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5632/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer M/S Elegant Creations Pvt. Ltd. 12(2)(2), Room No. 146A, 701, Meenaxi Apt. Gokuldham, Vs. 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace5295L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vipul J. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…not genuine.” Drawing the above conclusion by relying on decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 295 (SC), Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del), Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100, CIT v. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del), CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 10 (Del), the Ld. M/s Elegant Creations Pvt. Ltd. 5 CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.3,85,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held…

Grover Vineyards Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3509/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Ward M/S Grover Vineyards 1(1)(4),531 A/579 Pvt. Ltd., 107/8, 1St Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Arcadia, N.C.P.A. M.K.Road Lane, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Grover Vineyards Income Tax Officer Ltd. Anand Bhavan, 348, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. L. Raghavendra Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Ward M/s Grover Vineyards 1(1)(4),531 A/579 Pvt. Ltd., 107/8, 1st Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Arcadia, N.C.P.A. M.K.Road Lane, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAACG3592Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Grover Vineyards Income Tax Officer Ltd. Anand Bhavan, 348, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. AAACG3592Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fern Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3390/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 131(1)Section 133Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “के” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3390/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. CIT-9(3)(1), M/s. Fern Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 215, Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, 6th Floor, Akurti Trade Centre, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Road No. 7, Marol, MIDC, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCF 2322 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3141/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ M/s. Fern Infrastructur…

Jasamrit Creatins P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Creations P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 6(3)(2) Flat No. 901, Building ‘B’ Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Vs. Ashok Tower, Near Itc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hotel, Parel, Mumbai 400017 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aabcj8511H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anju KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 133(6)Section 68

…f Directors of the company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of the shareholders whether they want to subscribe to such premium. The Revenue authorities cannot question charging of such huge premium.  In CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [333 ITR 100 (Bom)] the Hon’ble Bombay High Court sustained the deletion of the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of the share application money by observing that "The question sought to be raised in the appeal was also raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to follow the judgment of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Expor…

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sankalp Corporate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 68

…eep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA No.5784/ Mum/ 2011 4. CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA 1613 of 2014 (Bom-HC) 5. Green Infra Ltd vs. ITO 38 Taxmann.com 253 (Mum-ITAT) 6. CIT vs. Green Infra 3 92 ITR 7 (Bom-HC) 7. CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC) 8. CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd 361ITR147(Del-HC) 7 Asst. CIT vs. M/s. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. 9. Jaya Securities Ltd vs. CIT 166Taxmann7(All-HC) [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court] 10. Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169/20 17 dated 14/03/20 17 (Del-HC) 11. CIT vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd 88 CCH 65 (All-HC…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…how the premium was not justified. In defence of his argument the learned A.R. relied on a series of judgements, viz.: - i. ACIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for AY 2008-09 ITA No 5784/Mum/2011 dated 23.01.2014 ii. CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom) iii. Arceli Reality Ltd Vs ITO AY 2007-08 ITA No6492/Mum/2016 dt 21.04.2017 iv. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT 399 ITR 425 (Mad) v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT AY 2004-05 ITA 1867/Mum/2012 dt 07.02.2014 vi. Principal CIT Vs M/S Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 66 of 2016 dated 10.04.2017 (Bom) 8. Per contra the lear…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 231/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 230/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 229/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 228/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 227/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 226/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 225/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM &SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle, vs R.R.Energy Ltd. Central Revenue Building, N.H.No.22, Village Civil Lines, Garhumariya, Raipur-492001 Jharsuguda Road, Raigharh(CG) PAN No. : AACCR 8829 B (Appellant) .. tsednepseR AND Cross Objection Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 (Arising out of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014) (Assessment Years :2006-2007 to 2012-2013) R.R.Energy Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle, N.H.No.22, Village Central Revenue Garhumariya, Building, C…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Luminant Investment Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2067/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 68

…sing Officer and he cannot go into the realm of suspicion. 15 At this stage, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (in I. T. A. No. 2182 of 2009 decided on October 12, 2009) [2011] 333 ITR 100. The relevant portion of this order is reproduced below: "In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PA/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 t…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Khushboo Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3647/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 68

…it cannot be termed as "bogus". The controversy is covered by the judgements rendered b y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Lid, vs. CIT, (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd, (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Born). 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, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." (vi) In the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd reported in 333 ITR 100. H…

Col Amarjit D Nagi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1050/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Batra
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…Services Ltd., vs ITO 8(2)(1) transactions could not be held to be non-genuine. Reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements. D & H Enterprises 72 taxmann.com 91 (Guj) Crystal Networks (P) Ltd 353 ITR 171 (Cal) Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom) 27. In respect of transactions with these parties regarding sale of lease back of assets, we found that complete details in respect of each lease transaction which includes photo copy of lease agreement, invoices of the assets purchased which have been leased, details of payment, installation certificates, details of insurance, details of l…

The DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nutech Coporate Services Ltd (Formerly Known As Iit Capital Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2204/MUM/2008[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1993-1994
For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Batra
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…Services Ltd., vs ITO 8(2)(1) transactions could not be held to be non-genuine. Reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements. D & H Enterprises 72 taxmann.com 91 (Guj) Crystal Networks (P) Ltd 353 ITR 171 (Cal) Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom) 27. In respect of transactions with these parties regarding sale of lease back of assets, we found that complete details in respect of each lease transaction which includes photo copy of lease agreement, invoices of the assets purchased which have been leased, details of payment, installation certificates, details of insurance, details of l…

Kalsha Builders P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…cerned Assessing Officer for proceedings against such share holders instead of adding the amount u/s.68 of the Act in the hands of assessee company. This view has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) by observing as under: "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names 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…

Kalsha Builders P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…cerned Assessing Officer for proceedings against such share holders instead of adding the amount u/s.68 of the Act in the hands of assessee company. This view has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) by observing as under: "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names 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…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…ntion was also invited to the details of shareholders filed before the AO like confirmation, board resolution, audited accounts, bank statements, share certificate copies. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Creative World Tel, 333 ITR 100 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ujala Dyeing, 328 ITR 437, it was contended that no addition on account of share application should be made where all these documents were filed before the AO. 6. With regard to the purchases so made Ld. AR drew our attention to the monthly & yearly details of quantities of purchase and sa…