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 367,154 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.

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 267, 268, 269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R PER S.…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Bhagatram Godhwani, Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 364/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagatram Godhwani, Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building No. 5, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Mital Industries Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabpg 3339 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…t of M/s. Andman Timber Industries civil appeal No.4228 of 2006 and the CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 ITR 295 (SC). The ld CIT(A) also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Osis Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 333 ITR 119( Delhi) while deciding the appeal of the assessee.” 17.1 The facts and circumstances and arguments taken by the parties being more or less identical to the facts and circumstances and arguments taken in the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2009-10, thus follo…

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company HUF, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) ITA Nos. 1873 &1875/Mum/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 9 Dy. CIT,CC-4(1) Vs. M/s Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company, M/s Ramniwas Bajaj & Company 2. CIT vs. Creative World tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom- High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd (20l3) 35 Taxmann.com 289 (AII- High 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd, (2013), 32 Taxmann.com 91 (All High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (20…

ITO 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Confiance Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 199/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 6(2)(1), M/S. Confiance Trading 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccc4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dharmvir, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…account of unexplained investments where the assessee furnished before the AO the evidences to prove identity of the investors. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC) wherein it has been held that if the share application is received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department can proceed against them and if necessary to reopen their individual assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 80…

Intellectual Securites Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, CC, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 263

…tances - High Court also considered the fact that the assessee was not able to produce even a single party before the AO despite agreeing before the CIT(A) that it will produce all parties before the AO during remand proceedings. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. 333 ITR 100 (Bom) Assessee had received share application money from shareholders - In order to prove genuineness of said 26 Intellectual Securities Pvt. Ltd. transactions, assessee-company had given names and addresses of shareholders etc. - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's explanation and added amount so received to its taxable income * Tribunal, how…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…the appeal of the assessee on merit the ld CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of CIT vs Odisha Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Creative World Telefilm Limited (333 ITR 100). In para 39.20, the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the comments of the AO are superficial and general in nature. He also stated that there is no illustration of facts or figures in the remand report, which have led to such a conclusion. In para 39.21 the Ld. CIT(A) stated that it is now a settled proposition that when the assessee has submitted the deta…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Adhoi Vyapar Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7308/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7308/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7309/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7310/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7311/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Adhoi Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Ito-9(1)(1), R.No. 205, 2Nd Floor, A-502, 234, Manish Garden Chs, बिाम/ Vs. 4 Bunglow, Andheri(W), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aahca-6296-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 To 2012-13 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री छल्ला नागेन्द्र प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7308/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7309/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7310/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7311…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ent is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of assessee- company (ii) In the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [2011](333 ITR 100)(Bombay) the court has 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 die que number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e shares of the assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the assessee. Therefore, the addition was liable to be deleted. iv) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay HC): "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 to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The Assessing Officer did ITA No.…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 278/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jain Dixit, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 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 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,, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Born-High Court) "The que…

Income Tax Officer 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Satyamitra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Indore

In the result, the departmental appeal i

ITA 451/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…estment [P] Ltd, 45 DTR 281 [Delhi] CIT Vs Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 (MP) Ashok Pal Daga Vs CIT, 220 ITR 452 (MP) CIT Vs Barjatiya Children Trust 225 ITR 640 (MP) CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd, 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT V/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd, 333 ITR 100 (2011) (Bom), Sumer Chand Jain Vs CIT, 292 ITR 241 (MP) 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We find that the assessee filed PAN of the loan creditors, confirmation of loan creditors to the effect that entire amoun…

ITO 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Aniata Dyes & Intermediates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6976/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…fficer 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". The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 has held "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 the department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. 4.11 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Arceli Realty Ltd. ITA No. 6492/Mum/2016 dated…

DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rockwood Hotels & Resorts Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5966/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5966/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit- 3(3)(1) M/S Rockwood Hotels & Resorts Ltd. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, बिाम/ 1520, 15Th Floor, Maker Chambers V, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaach-8611-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar – Ld. Ar ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 30/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale– Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…tworthiness and genuineness. As against this, Ld. AO failed to demonstrate that the receipts were mere accommodation entries. Finally, relying upon various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (333 ITR 100) as well as CIT V/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No 1613 of 2014 dated 20/03/2017), the impugned additions were deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. As rightly point out by Ld. AR, similar issue arose in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 wherein the assessee received share 4 Rockwood Hotels & Resorts Ltd. Ass…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…(vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ix). CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (x). CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT V…

DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shubham Motiwala & Tax -13(2)(2), Vs. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 146, 1St Floor, Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Chincholi Jn,S.V. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Malad, Mumbai – 400064

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…sactions under consideration were carried out through banking channel. The CIT(A) further drawing support from certain judicial pronouncements, viz. (i) CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom); and (iv) CIT Vs. Steller Investments Limited. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del), therein observed, that the „first proviso‟ to Sec. 68 of the Act, which as a pre-condition for discharge of onus by an assessee company as regards the „nature‟ and „source‟ of a sum consisting o…

DCIT 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7870/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Co No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 Dcit – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Balbir Metals & Room No. 506, 5Th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar Mk Road, Mumbai. Bhavan, Pd Mello Road Carnac Bunder, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, Dr Appellant By : Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ca Ar Date Of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objections . First, We Shall Take Up The Revenue Appeal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…fficer 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". The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 has held "If the share ITA No. 7870/Mum/2019&CO.59/Mum/2021 M/s Balbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders who's name are given to the Assessing Officer then the department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. The…