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.

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 100)

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…sion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion can be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case." 24.6 The decision of Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. - 333 ITR 100 (Bombay High Courtjbwg relevant is reproduced here-under:- "Held, dismissing the appeal of revenue that there was no dispute that the assessee had given the details of names and addresses of the 26 ITA No.782/M/2019 & ITA No.1969/M/2019 M/s. Geetanjali Space Pvt. Ltd. shareholders, their PAN/GIR numbers and had also given the cheque numbers, name…

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Lucas Meyer Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed, for statistical

ITA 3645/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-12(3)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Lucas Meyer Industries Pvt Ltd 205/D, Veena Nagar, Chincholi Road Malad W), Mumbai 400 064 Pan : Aaacl6818N Appellant Respondednt

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

…have to be some cogent reasons -and materials for the Assessing Officer and he cannot go into the realm of suspicion," 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 has held that :- 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 investiga…

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/s. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [PAN No.AABCT 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant ShriShankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronou…

ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Consultshah Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6893/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeed Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S Consultshah 12(1)(4), Room No. 145A, Vs. Financial Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 426, 4Th Floor, Road, Churchgate, Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Mumbai-400020. Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aadcc3362K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, Ars Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…tions, the Ld. CIT(A) relying specifically on the decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 295, Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (In ITA No. 2182 of 2009 decided on October 12, 2009) [2011] 333 ITR 100, CIT v. V.P. Mohanakala [2017] 291 ITR 278, CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), concluded that when requisite documents such as PAN, bank accounts, balance sheet etc. were available with the AO to establish that no cash transactions M/s Consultshah Financial Services 5 were involved in the bank accounts of the investing co…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd .[1433 of 2014], Arceli Realty Limited [ 6492/Mum/2016], CIT vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.(I.TA No.1613 of 2014), CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100(Bom) and other judgements over such issues, mentioned earlier, the additions made of Rs. 3,44,45,000/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961, is deleted.” 15 M/s. Re n Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 has held as under: - "That in this case the respondent had given the na…