How many judgments cite CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.?

235 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (333 ITR 100), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 68, Section 131, Section 132(4).

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 147 Section 68 Section 131 Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor bogus share capital retraction of statement retracted statement source of source share capital and share premium share application money permanent account number addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction addition under section 68 section 131

Judgments citing CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.

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

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

ITA 612/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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…

Nalin Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1235/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 7.3. 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. The…

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 883/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent IT(SS)A No. 876/Mum/2025 2013-14 Vasupujya Filaments, DCIT, CC-3, Thane 877/Mum/2025 2014-15 Room No. 44, 2nd Floor, Room No. 12, 878/Mum/2025 2015-16 Chandra Bhuvan, A Wing, 879/Mum/2025 2016-17 Kalbadevi Road, 6th Floor, 880/Mum/2025 2017-18 Old Hanuman Lane, Ashar IT Park, 881/Mum/2025 2018-19 Mumbai-400002. Thane West, 882/Mum/2025 2019-20 PAN: AAEFV5541P Maharashtra-400604 883/Mum/2025 2020-21 For Assessee : Ms. Simran Chava…

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 876/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

Prajita Investments Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2850/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri. Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI. GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2850/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prajita Investments Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. 4(3)(1), A-202,Amar Gain Co-op. 6th Floor, Aayakar Premises Society Ltd., Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Opp. S.T. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Workshop, Khopat, Thane 400020. West. Mumbai- 400601 PAN : AABCP3131D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Himanshu Gandhi Respondent by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 ORDER Per: Sm…

ACIT-Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Hitesh Joitkumar Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanth Das, CIT-DR

Section 68

…d the AO was not justified in treating the entire sales as bogus. In this regard, the Ld.CIT(A) relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries P Ltd (397 ITR 136), CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) and CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp P Ltd (35 Taxmann.com 384). The Ld.CIT(A) further noticed that the VAT department has accepted the sales reported by the assessee and hence the AO was not justified in treating the same as bogus. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision rendered by Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Fine Gujranwala Jewel…

Hitesh Joitkumar Jain, Mumbai Central vs. ACIT Circle-20(2) Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

ITA 2017/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanth Das, CIT-DR

Section 68

…d the AO was not justified in treating the entire sales as bogus. In this regard, the Ld.CIT(A) relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries P Ltd (397 ITR 136), CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) and CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp P Ltd (35 Taxmann.com 384). The Ld.CIT(A) further noticed that the VAT department has accepted the sales reported by the assessee and hence the AO was not justified in treating the same as bogus. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision rendered by Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Fine Gujranwala Jewel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S. Fuelco Coal India Ltd., Nagpur

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.90/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–1(2), Nagpur v/s M/s. Fuel Co. Coal India Ltd. 926–A, Fulwani Palace ……………. Respondent Central Avenue, Despande Layout Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AAACF8231B Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 30/01/2025 Date of Order – 14/02/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impu…

Masineni Hotels Private Limited, Anantapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Anantapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.346/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Masineni Hotels Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Limited Anantpur Anantapur [Pan : Aahcm6211F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,35,48,000/- Being The Difference In The Share Capital, Share Application & Other Loan Subscribed / Given By Managing Director Shri M.Ramaiah U/S 68 Of The Income Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), 1961 (The Act).

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 68

…lant company. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). 8. The learned DR on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that it is a matter on record, that the appellant could not explain the difference amount claimed to have been received from Shri M.Ramaiah, when compared to appellant books and books of accounts of the Director. Further, the appellant could not explain…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…ing the names and addresses of the company, their PAN, Name of bank from which received the money, confirmation of the companies, then it cannot be termed as bogus. The issue is covered by the judgment in case of CIT –Vs.- Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom). In such circumstances there is no justification in addition making the under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. There is no evidence that the entire transaction was sham and bogus transaction. The assessee has submitted that assessee company has established identity and creditworthiness of the entities as well as proved the bonafid…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

…ding the names and addresses of the company, their PAN, Name of bank from which the alleged investor received invested the money, then it cannot be termed as bogus. The issue is covered by the judgment in case of CIT –Vs.- Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom). In such circumstances there is no justification in addition making the under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. There is no evidence that the entire transaction was sham and bogus transaction. The appellant has submitted that appellant company has established identity and creditworthiness of the entities as well as proved the bonaf…

ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Vastimal Bhim Raj Sancheti, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth GS, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 68

…mann.com 661) (Gujarat)  ITO Vs. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd., [2022] (139 taxmann.com 317) (SC)  Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., [2022] (145 taxmann.com 27) (Gujarat)  CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) [2008] (SC)  CIT vs creative World Telefilms Ltd.(2011) ( 333 ITR 100) (Bombay) ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 22  CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (394 ITR 680 ) ( 2018) ( Bombay)  ITO vs Anant Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ( 20 taxmann. Com 153) (2012) (Mum) 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR vehemently argued his case and strongly supported…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nagpur vs. M/S Raghav Finvest Pvt Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/NAG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…it cannot be termed as "bogus". The controversy is covered by the judgments 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 Telefilms 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, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." 5 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 The above case laws have been r…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S Nihal Gits Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Vishnu Gilts Pvt.Lt, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Neuzen Finance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1511/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 68

…appearance of the parties in person cannot be a sufficient reason to treat the transaction as non-genuine as had been decided by the Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 136), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) and CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Pvt Ltd (35 Taxmann.com 384) As regards, the argument of the AO that the lending parties had meagre income, the appellant has contended that it is not the result in the Profit and Loss account which determines the capacity of the lender to extend the loan but it is the Balance Sheet which explains the capacity to provide…

Neuzen Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Nafac, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1247/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 68

…appearance of the parties in person cannot be a sufficient reason to treat the transaction as non-genuine as had been decided by the Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT ν. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 136), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) and CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Pvt Ltd (35 Тахтапп.com 384) As regards, the argument of the AO that the lending parties had meagre income, the appellant has contended that it is not the result in the Profit and Loss account which determines the capacity of the lender to extend the loan but it is the Balance Sheet which explains the capacity to provide…

Leading Age Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1114/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…panies viz., Kings Merchants Pvt. Ltd. was an investor in this case also for which addition made was deleted. 8. 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…

Leading Age Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 2(2), Central Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1113/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITO, Ward- 1)1), Nagpur vs. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company". (ii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s 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 shareholders who's name are given to the Assessing Officer then M/s. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.47/Nag./2019 the department can always proceed against them and if necessary, reopen their individual assessments. iii) The Hon'ble Sup…