How many judgments cite CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd.?

74 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. (319 ITR 5), spanning 2016 to 2026.

CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 1962, Section 68, Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, Section 143(1), Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.

319 ITR 5Supreme Court of India2009#1529 most cited

What is CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee company receives share application money or unsecured loans and provides the identity of the shareholders or creditors to the Assessing Officer, the amount cannot be treated as the assessee's undisclosed income under Section 68. The Income Tax Department must instead proceed against the alleged bogus shareholders or creditors individually.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. · Lovely Export · Section 68 · Income Tax Act 1961 · share application money · bogus shareholders · undisclosed income · cash credit · identity creditworthiness genuineness · assessee company burden · reopening individual assessment · source of source

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 1962 Section 68 Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act Section 143(1)Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act Section 143(3)Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

nav method section 52(2)dcf method strategic investment section 56(2)(viib)commercial rights valuation of shares section 60 bogus share capital section 56(2)(vii)section 52 section 251(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd.

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N. KapadiaaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…onus would shift upon revenue to dislodge the assessee’s claim by bringing on record material evidences and unless this onus is discharged by the revenue, no addition could be sustained u/s 68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5], dismissing revenue’s appeal, observed as under:- 2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given t…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

…hhattisgarh high court and honorable Supreme Court of India 7.1.Honorable Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT v. Venkateshwar Ispat (P.) Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhattisgarh HC) held that: As decide by the SC in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 5 (SC), even if the share application money was received by the assesse company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names were given to the AO, then, the Dep’t. Was free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assesse company. Hence, the Jurisdictional HC held…

Punyah Building Materials Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6171/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the argument of the Ld. DR to hold that the assessee has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 5 (St.) observed that even if the share capital money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus share holders, whose names are given to the A.O. The Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual 11 Punyah Building Materials Vs. ITO assessment in accordance with law. But cannot regarded undisclosed income of the assessee Company. In…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…the decision of CIT Vs Novo Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169) was not applicable to the facts of the case. Instead it was held that the issue in hands was on the lines of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (319 ITR 5). Accordingly, the addition made under Section 68 on account of share application was deleted. 39. We draw support and guidance from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Ami Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. (424 ITR 219) where it was held as under: “17. In so far order passed by the Assessing Officer is concerned, he came to…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Shri Ilaben K. Ghadia, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Ilaben K. Ghadia V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1(1) 1702, Millennium Icon 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No. 50/51, Sector – 15 Old Cgo Annexe, M.K. Road Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Ahqpg3648F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Hiral Sejpal Department Represented By : Mr. Asif Karmani

Section 132Section 56(2)Section 68

…tribunal held that the revenue had all the information about the identity and the source of the funds, and the revenue could have proceeded against the said Investor. The Hon'ble tribunal have relied upon the decision in case of Lovely exports private limited 319 ITR 5 (Supreme Court). The Hon'ble Supreme court in no uncertain terms has held that once the assessee has given the complete information about the investor and there is no contrary material available on record then the revenue should not proceed against the shareholder who has confirmed the transaction. The hon'ble Bombay high court while confirming the…

Zhilmil Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6172/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the argument of the Ld. DR to hold that the assessee has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 5 (ST) observed that even if the share capital money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus share holders, whose names are given to the A.O. The Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. But cannot regarded undisclosed income of the assessee Company. The present case, the assessee has substant…

Shri Shri Nishant Jain, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 40

…he sources of credits given by the lenders/depositors, nothing prevented him to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. For, this proposition, we draw supports from the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Ltd. 319 ITR 5. Thus, in light above, action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 21,45,000/- u/s 68 in the hands of the appellant is not at all justified. It has not been proved by the Assessing Officer by bringing any material on record that the impugned loans/deposits is in fact income of the appellant. Similarly, there are no materials/evidences on…

Devesh Cinemas, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6184/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The same cannot be denied in the absence of material contrary brought by the Assessing Officer. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 5 (ST) observed that even if the share capital money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus share holders, whose names are given to the A.O. The Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. But cannot regarded undisclosed income of the assessee Company. The present case, the assessee has substant…

Dayalu Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Faridabad

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6174/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Faridabad

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6173/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7175/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), M/S Gama Entertainment 436-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Systems Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Vs. 103, A Wing, Sai Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Gowandi Station Road, Deonar, Gowandi (East), Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aadcg 3492 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Parth Navandar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Parth Navandar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 68

…s Vs. Union of India wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pt. Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pt. Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pt. Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) has been duly discussed and distinguished? (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) has been duly discussed and distinguished? (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) has been duly discussed and distinguished? iii. Whether on the facts, Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon"ble ITAT was justified…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…World Telefilms Ltd reported in 333 ITR 100. Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided that: "...the Tribunal was pleased to follow the judgment of the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 : (2008) 6 DTR (SC) 308 : (2009) 319 ITR 5 (St.) wherein the apex Court observed that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the assessee had given…

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “जी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO – 1(3)(2) M/s Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5th floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/GIR No. AABCS-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant…

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

…on of Pr.CIT V/s Veedhata Towers Pvt. Ltd. (2018 403 ITR 415). Therefore, the assessee was not even otherwise obligated to prove the source of source of share application money in this year. 6.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5], dismissing revenue’s appeal, observed as under: - 2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given…

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

…rted in 333 ITR 100. Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided that :- 36 Shri Mahendra H. Shah “……the Tribunal was pleased to follow the judgment of the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Lid. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195: (2008) 6 DTR (SC) 308: (2009) 319 ITR 5 (St.) wherein the apex Court observed that if the share application money is received by the assessee-company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AG, then the Department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the assessee had given…

Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Cdit-CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7507/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 7507/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Daga Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cc – 3(4) बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, 106, Sagar Shopping Centre J. P. Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcd-9604-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Addition U/S 68 For Rs.67 Lacs In Ay 2009-10, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Assessment Was Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. On 147 On 30/06/2016 Wherein Impugned Order Was Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] On 26/10/2018. The Assessee Being Resident Corporate Assessee Is Stated

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…onus would shift upon revenue to dislodge the assessee’s claim by bringing on record material evidences and unless this onus is discharged by the revenue, no addition could be sustained u/s 68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5], dismissing revenue’s appeal, observed as under: - 2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 756/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Tiwari – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra (Ld. CIT-DR)/

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

…onus would shift upon revenue to dislodge the assessee’s claim by bringing on record material evidences and unless this onus is discharged by the revenue, no addition could be sustained u/s 68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5], dismissing revenue’s appeal, observed as under: - 2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given…

DCIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi vs. Fortis Health Management Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5477/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. N.L. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-9(2), Vs. M/s Fortis Health Management New Delhi Ltd., C/o Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, Okhla Road, New Delhi-110025 PAN-AABCF2101R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. N.L. Gandhi, Adv Respondent by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of hearing : 10.03.2021 Date of pronouncement : 10.03.2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved…

M/S. J.R. Properties, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our order

ITA 6003/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad–Ld. Sr.DR

Section 68

…sessee’s claim by bringing on record material evidences and unless this onus is discharged by the revenue, no addition could be sustained u/s 68. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely 3 M/s. J.R. Properties Assessment Year: 2010-11 Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5], dismissing revenue’s appeal, observed as under: - 2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given…