CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd.

242 ITR 357High Court2000#11622 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 26ASection 292CSection 34Section 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 133section 68section 13personcompanyindiabusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd.

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

…CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer burden of proof to prove a negative fact could not have been cast upon it. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Lanco Industries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 357 (AP). In the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee company had issued a cheque of Rs. 10 lac towards commission to a non-resident for facilitating raising of share capital from the non-resident investors. However, the said cheque was returned by the commission agent for the reason that his company did not have a bank account in India.…

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

…CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer burden of proof to prove a negative fact could not have been cast upon it. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Lanco Industries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 357 (AP). In the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee company had issued a cheque of Rs. 10 lac towards commission to a non-resident for facilitating raising of share capital from the non-resident investors. However, the said cheque was returned by the commission agent for the reason that his company did not have a bank account in India.…

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…e tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer was not able to bring anything on record that it was the assessee's own money which was routed in the form of share application money and has rightly deleted the same.” d. CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd.[2000] 242 ITR 357/110 Taxman 172 (AP). While rejecting the Revenue's appeal, the High Court observed that merely by reason of unsatisfactory explanation relating to the source of investment by the shareholders, the money invested in shares cannot be treated as income of the assessee. If the ostensible shareholders failed to explain the means of investment, that sh…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

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

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…the case of Noorjahan and Bharat Engineering. However as per the Income Tax Act, a firm a company have to necessarily file their ROIs. With regard to the unexplained shareholders the assessee relying on the AP HC decision in the case of Lanco Industries Ltd. 242 ITR 357 held that amount invested has to be considered in the hands of shareholder himself. Assessee also relied upon the SC decision in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. The CIT(A) held, that assessee is not carrying on any business activity and no s sources exists. The decisions of SC are applicable to the case and no addition is required to be made.…

ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOODLUCK MERCHANTS P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcb 2011 L]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed." 6.8. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case CIT vs. Lanco Industries Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 357 (Andhra Pradesh), held as follows:- “Moreover, we fail to see how merely by reason of unsatisfactory explanation relating to the source of investment by the shareholders, the money invested on shares should be treated as income of the assessee. If the ostensible shareholders failed to explain the means of investment, that should have been treated…

ITO, WD-9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOLDSTAR TRACOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed." 6.8. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case CIT vs. Lanco Industries Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 357 (Andhra Pradesh), held as follows:- “Moreover, we fail to see how merely by reason of unsatisfactory explanation relating to the source of investment by the 17 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd shareholders, the money invested on shares should be treated as income of the assessee. If the ostensible shareholders failed to exp…

ITO, WARD-6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ADVENT STOCK MANAGEMENT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1647/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed." 6.8. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case CIT vs. Lanco Industries Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 357 (Andhra Pradesh), held as follows:- “Moreover, we fail to see how merely by reason of unsatisfactory explanation relating to the source of investment by the shareholders, the money invested on shares should be treated as income of the assessee. If the ostensible shareholders failed to explain the means of investment, that should have been treated…

NAGARJUNA CERACHEM PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result a total addition of Rs

ITA 1146/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Nagarjuna Cerachem Vs. Ito, Pvt Ltd., Ward-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aabcn3368G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-05-2018 Order Per Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Hyderabad, Dated 12.05.2015 For The A.Y 2007-08 Passed U/S 250 Of The It Act, 1961 (The Act).

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 250Section 68Section 68S

…ence, no infirmity is found with the impugned judgment. Special Leave Petition is dismissed. It cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee-company”. 4. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lanco Industries, reported in (2000) 242 ITR 357 is held as follows: “If the ostensible shareholders failed to explain the means of investment, that should have been treated as unexplained income in their hands. In order to add it to the income of the assessee there must be a further finding that in fact the shareholders were mere name-lenders and the money allegedly invested by them really be…

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

ITTA/137/2005HC Telangana20 Dec 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

For Appellant: Sri A.V.Krishna KaundinyaFor Respondent: Ms. K.Mamata
Section 68

…mmissioner of Income Tax, Karimnagar … Respondent !Counsel for the appellant : Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya ^Counsel for the respondent : Ms. K.Mamata <GIST : >HEAD NOTE : ?Cases referred : 1. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del.) 2. (2000) 242 ITR 357 (AP) 3. (2003) 263 ITR 289 (Calcutta) 4. (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Raj.) CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J. itta_137_2005 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL I.T.T.A.No. 137 OF 2005 DATED 20TH DECEMBER, 2017 Between: M/s. Sriman Sai Securities Investment Finance Limited, Jagtia…