CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

216 CTR 195Supreme Court of India2008#57 most cited

What is CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. authority for?

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

854

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. · Section 68 · share application money · bogus shareholders · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 · reopening assessments of shareholders · 216 CTR 195 · Supreme Court 2008

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 131Section 148Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumshare application moneypaper companyretracted statementaddition u/s 68addition under section 68genuineness of the transactionentry operatoraccommodation entrysection 133(6)

Judgments citing CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 to 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2nd floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. PAN: AAFFB 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridha…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 to 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2nd floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. PAN: AAFFB 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridha…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 to 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13) M/s. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2nd floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. PAN: AAFFB 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridha…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 4285/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan…

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Raipur vs. M/S R.N. Navnirman Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 143/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.143/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.N. Navnirman Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aadcr0896D ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…arrying out any enquiry could not have justifiably drawn adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the transaction in question. Accordingly, drawing support from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of ACIT Vs. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd., 319 ITR 393, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that now when the investment made by the share subscriber company, viz. M/s. Lovely Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was duly reflected in the latter’s audited financial statement for the year under c…

Shri Madan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 873/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54BSection 68

…g of bank statement of share of applicant, is not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in these cases has considered Section 68 against share money after considering the decision in the case of Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. (J2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)) where the onus on the applicant is limited but cash creditor shown in form of loan where the assessee is required to prove all the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. The Apex Court in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT j1977] 107 ITR 938 held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. Whe…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Still if the AO doubts the availability of the source in the hands of those shareholders, then the AO/CIT must have taken actions in the hands of those 3 shareholders but not in the case of the assessee. We rely on the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4.2.3 Capacity Proved: Further the creditworthiness of the shareholders also stands fully established in as much as the direct source of the amounts given was the gift received by the shareholders from Late Dr. Rajendra Kumar Joshi, and this clear fact cannot be denied as the transaction have made through account payee cheque/account transf…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Still if the AO doubts the availability of the source in the hands of those shareholders, then the AO/CIT must have taken actions in the hands of shareholder Company but not in the case of the assessee. We rely on the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4.2.3 Capacity Proved: Further the creditworthiness of the shareholder company also stands fully established in as much as the direct source of the amounts given was the Capital of Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Pvt Ltd, and this clear fact cannot be denied as the transaction have made through account payee cheque/account transfer. The…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Still if the AO doubts the availability of the source in the hands of those shareholders, then the AO/CIT must have taken actions in the hands of those 3 shareholders but not in the case of the assessee. We rely on the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4.2.3 Capacity Proved: Further the creditworthiness of the shareholders also stands fully established in as much as the direct source of the amounts given was the gift received by the shareholders from Late Dr. Rajendra Kumar Joshi, and this clear fact cannot be denied as the transaction have made through account payee cheque/account transf…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 273/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…hether, on facts, impugned addition under section 68 made to assessee's income was unjustified and same was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 34 to 43] [In favour of assessee]” 22.2 Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] (2010) 14 SCC 761 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this allotment of share money cannot be recorded as undisclosed income…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…hether, on facts, impugned addition under section 68 made to assessee's income was unjustified and same was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 34 to 43] [In favour of assessee]” 22.2 Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] (2010) 14 SCC 761 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this allotment of share money cannot be recorded as undisclosed income…

Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commission of Income Tax, -1, Surat

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

ITA 50/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 263Section 68

…Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. 11. Your Honour's attention is invited to the landmark ruling of Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). where in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does n…

Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commission of Income Tax, -1, Surat

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

ITA 49/SRT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 263Section 68

…Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. 11. Your Honour's attention is invited to the landmark ruling of Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). where in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does n…

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…s Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) Limited, (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have We may notic…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…s Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) Limited, (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have We may notic…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…s Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) Limited, (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have We may notic…

Nuland Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Offiers, Ward -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan:Aaccn5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.5.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 545 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid. After Hearing Both The Sides & Following The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Write Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020 Order Dated 10.01.2022 Wherein It Is Held That The Period From 15.3.2020 Till

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…earned CIT (A) is not in Page 3 of 8 ITA No 23 of 2022 Nuland Infrastructure P Ltd Hyderabad accordance with law and therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) should be set aside and the additions made be deleted: (i) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(S.C) (ii) CIT vs. Anurag Agarwal (2015)54 Taxmann.com 75(All) (iii) PCIT V Himachal Fibres Ltd (2018) 98 Taxmann.com 173 (S.C) (iv) CIT vs. HLT Finance (P) Ltd (2011) 12 Taxmann.com 247 (v) CIT vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd (2013) 34 Taxmann.com 177 (vi) CIT (Central) vs. Som Tobacco India Ltd (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 310 (vii) CIT-1 vs. Gagandeep I…

The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M Godriwala Plstics Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 122/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Godriwala Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Msana Road, Deopuri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcg1400C ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…that after the discharge of onus of the assessee any enquiry has been made by the AO to establishthat some or all of the money in the hands of M/s Reward Tie-up Pvt Ltd is not explained. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd., 216 CTR 195 if the share application money in the hands of appellant is found to be bogus, the department is free to re-open the individual assessment of shareholders. Hon'ble Bilaspur High Court has held in the case of Jagdamba Sponge Pvt Ltd 130 TTJ 494 held that appellant company having produced Income tax assessment particulars of its share applicants be…