CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…them could not be regarded as its undisclosed income within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the assessee had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). As regards the statement of Shri Navin Nishar, Chartered accountant that was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 11.01.2018 in the course of the surv…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…them could not be regarded as its undisclosed income within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the assessee had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). As regards the statement of Shri Navin Nishar, Chartered accountant that was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 11.01.2018 in the course of the surv…

Cotton Nation, Mumbai vs. ACIT-26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

…by the appellant. 7.4.9 In support of my above views, reference is made to the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Courts in the following case laws. (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 has held as, "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department 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 secti…

Cotton Nation, Mumbai vs. JCIT-26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

…by the appellant. 7.4.9 In support of my above views, reference is made to the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Courts in the following case laws. (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 has held as, "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department 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 secti…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Minimed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

…resulted in further affirming the stand of the Appellant. On the contrary, the AO has not substantiated his presumption and doubt with any verifiable documents. The appellant relied on the following case laws :- In the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports - (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) it has been held the onus cast on the Assessee is merely to explain the nature and source of the credits in order to fulfill the conditions laid down u/s 68. Once the Assessee has furnished these details and which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer (AO) are bogus then the right course for the Department is to proceed re-open the individ…

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

…een investigated. However, no such things have been done by the Ld. AO in this regard. Your honour the appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements, in support of its submissions as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs: 1. CIT vs. Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 44(SC): The Court while dismissing the SLP recorded some reasons as well albeit in brief, which is as under: "2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s.68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share 9 M/s. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., applica…

Nav Consec P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

…t of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electro Polychem Ltd., supra, and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Steller Investment Ltd., supra. 26 This case is distinguishable from the case of CIT. v. Lovely Expos Pvt. Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195, in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions in (i) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 90 CCH 0105 (Delhi): (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Globus Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd.. reported in (2014) 264 CTR 481 (Delhi); (Hi) Onassis Axles Private Limit…

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

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

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

…ft 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 CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2009] 216 CTR 195, 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- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

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

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

…ft 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 CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2009] 216 CTR 195, 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…