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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.?

854 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195)

ACIT Central Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

ACIT Cent. Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2223/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

ACIT Cent. Cir -4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2221/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1497/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1496/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1495/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1494/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1493/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1492/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132(1)Section 68

…upon by the assesses are reproduced hereunder- 1. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) 2. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) 4. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) (Civil Appeal) 5. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289(AII- High Court) 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All- High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh- High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 67/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ed the burden of proof in filling the documents before the A.O and the CIT(A). But the A.O has taken the different view and over looked the explanations of the assessee. The Ld.AR has relied on the judicial decisions as under: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Ta…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 66/MUM/2022[2013-14`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ed the burden of proof in filling the documents before the A.O and the CIT(A). But the A.O has taken the different view and over looked the explanations of the assessee. The Ld.AR has relied on the judicial decisions as under: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Ta…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 65/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ed the burden of proof in filling the documents before the A.O and the CIT(A). But the A.O has taken the different view and over looked the explanations of the assessee. The Ld.AR has relied on the judicial decisions as under: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Ta…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 64/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ed the burden of proof in filling the documents before the A.O and the CIT(A). But the A.O has taken the different view and over looked the explanations of the assessee. The Ld.AR has relied on the judicial decisions as under: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Ta…

V E L Software Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1173/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

Section 68

…ulip Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 92 CCH 60, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under : “So far as the last ground, i.e. the merits as to the addition of Rs. 4,84,000/- goes, the basis for introducing Section 68 is understood in CIT v. Lovely Exports, 216 CTR 195 to say that the assessee not only has to establish the identity of the share applicant or investor, as the case may be, but also of the third party. It has to be prima facie established that such third party was credit worthy and the transaction was genuine. Whilst the acquisition of the shares of Galaxy Commercial was not doubted by the AO, what…

ACIT, CC -4 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Kag India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 758/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.758/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kag India Private Limited, Income Tax, No.264/15-1, Sathyanathan Complex, 1St Floor, Velachery Road, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai – 600 034. Tambaram East, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck5381Q] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, Dated 21.02.2020 For The Assessment Year 2012 - 13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 116 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Pandemic Covid-19 & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-1 v.M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that the amendment in section 68 is prospective and not retrospective. 5.4.4 In the case of Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) it was held that if share application money is received by an assessee from subscribers, whose name are given to Assessing Officer and the same turn out to be bogus, then the revenue is free to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. Thus, unlike other credits wherein one has to explain three ingredients viz;- identity, cr…

ACIT, Ncc - 3, Chennai vs. Shri Pakkeer Tulkarnai Gulam Alam, Chennai

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

ITA 2486/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2486/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Sanat Kumar Raha

Section 68

…arged its onus cast upon him as per Sec.68 of the Act. This legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble :: 7 :: Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Private Limited reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), wherein, it has been held that once names of creditors are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to re- open their individual assessments in accordance with law, but some received from them cannot regard as undisclosed income of the assessee. This legal position further supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Shangrila Impex, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 145(3)

…ng Officer felt that being interest-free, certain amounts were deemed to be included as income-was to do so in accordance with law rather than proceeding under Section 68 as he did. The mandate of the law as explained in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) is that onus is upon the assessee to disclose the true identity of the creditor and the creditworthiness of the said party. In this case since the identity and creditworthiness had been established, genuineness was a matter of inference. This Court is satisfied that both the CIT and ITAT acted in consonance with law. No substantial question…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…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 15 shareholders but not in the case of the assessee. We rely on the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). Reliance is placed on the case of Elder IT Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 232 (Mumbai Trib.), it was held that: "18. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the AO called for financial details of these companies and also examine the parties in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the transaction. There…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…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 15 shareholders but not in the case of the assessee. We rely on the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). Reliance is placed on the case of Elder IT Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 232 (Mumbai Trib.), it was held that: "18. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the AO called for financial details of these companies and also examine the parties in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the transaction. There…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Dukraft Paper Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 452/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…tey Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 271 (Guj.), the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd., reported in (2001) 115 taxmann 99 (SC) and CIT vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 were relied upon. 13. The assessee further submitted as follows: “6.1 The appellant company had submitted the working of Fair Market Value of equity shares in accordance with DCF method vide submission dated 26.12.2014. The said working is reproduced herewith as Annexure -13. The appellant company had also gave justification regarding issue of s…

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

ACIT Central Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT Cent. Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT Cent. Cir -4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4 (4), Mumbai

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (1), Mumbai

V E L Software Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ACIT, CC -4 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Kag India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ACIT, Ncc - 3, Chennai vs. Shri Pakkeer Tulkarnai Gulam Alam, Chennai

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Shangrila Impex, New Delhi

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Dukraft Paper Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai