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 366,459 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.

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 1873/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…urt-Bombay) ITA Nos. 1873 &1875/Mum/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 9 Dy. CIT,CC-4(1) Vs. M/s Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company, M/s Ramniwas Bajaj & Company 2. CIT vs. Creative World tele films Ltd.(2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom- High Court) 3. CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. 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 (20l3) 35 Taxmann.com 289 (AII- High 6. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd, (2013), 32 Taxmann.com 91 (All High Court) 7. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt. Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh-High Court) 8. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd vs. I…

ITO 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Confiance Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 199/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 6(2)(1), M/S. Confiance Trading 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccc4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dharmvir, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…Confiance Trading Pvt. Ltd. creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, however, the AO has not done any further verification. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained investments where the assessee furnished before the AO the evidences to prove identity of the investors. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011)…

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3302/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68

…estors and reopen their independent assessments in accordance with law and this amount can not be added in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also followed this decision in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom.) as well as in CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.) by laying down same ratio. The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of Andaman Timber Industries vs.…

Vijay Steel Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 6928/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & M/S. Vijay Steel Vs. Dcit 13(3)2 Corporation Pvt Ltd Mumbai.-400020 2 Sabhapati Bhavan, 19 Meena Baugh, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv3517E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vivek Jain. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Hoshang B Irani. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Vivek Jain. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Hoshang B Irani. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44ASection 68

…taken the different view and over looked the explanations of the assessee, The Ld.AR has ITA No. 6928&6929/Mum/2018 M/s. Vijay Steel Corporation Pvt Ltd substantiated the submissions relying 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) 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 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 7. Accordingly,…

Intellectual Securites Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, CC, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 263

…en there is no reason or justification to make the impugned addition in the case of the appellants. In any view of the matter, if the identity of the 16 Intellectual Securities Pvt. Ltd. share applicant is proved, the Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) has held that- "If share application money is received by assessee-company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to Assessing Officer, then 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 section 68 of assess…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6723/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…shareholders distinctly. The undisclosed income of share holders cannot be treated as the income of the company. The decision of Delhi High Court (which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by rejecting the SLP) in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195 it has been held that: It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. The above decision is on the principle that shareholders and company are separate entities. T…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6722/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…shareholders distinctly. The undisclosed income of share holders cannot be treated as the income of the company. The decision of Delhi High Court (which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by rejecting the SLP) in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195 it has been held that: It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. The above decision is on the principle that shareholders and company are separate entities. T…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6721/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…shareholders distinctly. The undisclosed income of share holders cannot be treated as the income of the company. The decision of Delhi High Court (which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by rejecting the SLP) in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195 it has been held that: It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. The above decision is on the principle that shareholders and company are separate entities. T…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6720/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…shareholders distinctly. The undisclosed income of share holders cannot be treated as the income of the company. The decision of Delhi High Court (which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by rejecting the SLP) in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195 it has been held that: It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. The above decision is on the principle that shareholders and company are separate entities. T…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1982/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Bmp Steels P Ltd, Thiruvallur

ITA 1981/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1751/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1750/CHNY/2017[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1749/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1748/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), `Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1747/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1746/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Bmp Steels P Ltd, Thiruvallur

ITA 1745/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Bmp Steels P Ltd, Thiruvallur

ITA 1744/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…at best reflect proper paper work and documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness are deeper and obstrusive aspects. 2.4 The ld. CI”F(A) ought to have appreciated that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (216 CTR 195 - January 2008) and M/s Steller Investments Ltd (251 ITR 263 - July 2000) are distinguishable one to the facts of the case of the assessee in that, in the present case, the investing companies were non-existent and as such the question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought t…

ACIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. P.G.Holiday Inn Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6933/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. A. DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Vaidya
Section 144

…the assessee by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shree Rajlakshmi Textile Park (P.) Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 2 (Bom), CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (301 ITR 384 (Del)) and CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (216 CTR 195 (SC)). On merit, it was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as the share capital and share premium were not received by the assessee in the year immediately preceding the assessment year and, therefore, the same cannot be charged to the income of the assessee for the assessment year. 4. The ld. Departmental Representat…