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 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 366,470 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 68 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source share capital and share premium share application money paper company retracted statement addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction entry operator accommodation entry section 133(6)

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

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Shree Shyam Sponge & Power P.Ltd, Raipur

ITA 246/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R

Section 68

…ney which is an essential pre-requisite for making addition in such cases. I am convinced that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 and the jurisdictional High Court viz. the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 393 for the reason that the facts in such cases are entirely same, particularly, when no differentiation could be effectively demonstrated and brought on to the record by the A.O. The submissions of the AO…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Shree Shyam Sponge & Power P.Ltd, Raipur

ITA 244/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R

Section 68

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Shree Shyam Sponge & Power P.Ltd, Raipur

ITA 243/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, A.R

Section 68

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S.Pvk Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 2168/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Pvk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcp 9391Dm (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 115JSection 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…at the during the course or scrutiny proceedings, the assessee has submitted confirmation letters from the creditors and PAN, which proves the identity, creditworthiness and identity of the parties. He relied on the following case law: 1. Lovely Exports Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC) 2. Vaishnodevi Refooils & Solvex, 96 Taxman.com 469 (SC) :- 9 -: PVK Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 3. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd., 116 Taxamann.com 4. Orissa Corp. (P) Ltd., 25 Taxman 80F (SC) 5. Samyu Glass (P) Ltd., ITA No. 1218/Hyd/2015. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…income of the respondent-assessee company, where documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender are placed on record. For this preposition the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon various decisions namely CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd (2014-TIOL-297-HC-ALL- IT),CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC),CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del),CIT vs Creative World Telefilm Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom), CIT vs Value Capital services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del), Netscape Software Ltd. in ITA no 3852/Mum/2009 dated 1…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…udgment in case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd (supra) would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 9. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court while deleting the addition made u/s 68 observed that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but this amount of share applic…

DCIT 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Indore

ITA 384/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Dcit-5(1) M/S. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaocs7650K Appellant By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Virtual hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAOCS7650K Appellant by Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, ARs Date of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue for Ass…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…d 01.07.2019) 1TAT, Kolkata 5.3.10 The contention of the appellant finds support in the following cases of the Hon'ble Courts in the following case laws. i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case or Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. f2008] 216 CTR 195 has held as, "if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in according with law but this amount of Share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section…

JCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Prasandi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4647/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 68

…pplicants and without applying his mind added the amounts received as share application u/s 68 of IT Act. In view of the above facts and various judgments cited by AR and keeping in mind of judgment of Apex court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 the addition of Rs.2,50,00,000/- is deleted.” 12.1 It is pertinent to note that the assessee for want of working capital had issued 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each at a premium of Rs. 4,900/- to two different companies. The breakup of issue stands of 2,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each at a premium of Rs. 4,900/- to Appoorva Leasing Finance…

Kirtiprada Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” 16. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP in the case of Lovely Exports as has been reported as judgment delivered by the CTR at 216 CTR 295: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this special leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee- company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is fre…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 278/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jain Dixit, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain u/s 68 of the Act. 14. Coming to the cases relied upon by the assessee, the assessee has relied upon various judicial precedence including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195. The case laws relied upon by the assessee has been dealt as under:- CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) "Once the authorities have got all the details, including the name and addresses of the shareholders, their PAN/GIR number, so also the name of the Bank from which the alleged investors…

Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow vs. M/S Dev Bhoomi Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

…ts and payments were received by the appellant through banking channel. Therefore, the inference that the genuineness of transaction was questionable is not acceptable in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) where it was held that share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 if the names of the payers are given to the Assessing Officer. Besides this, the proviso to section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding any sum credited on account of share application money, share capital, share premium, etc. was actually inserted vide Finance…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shubham Motiwala & Tax -13(2)(2), Vs. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 146, 1St Floor, Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Chincholi Jn,S.V. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Malad, Mumbai – 400064

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…companies were regularly filing their returns of income and the transactions under consideration were carried out through banking channel. The CIT(A) further drawing support from certain judicial pronouncements, viz. (i) CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom); and (iv) CIT Vs. Steller Investments Limited. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del), therein observed, that the „first proviso‟ to Sec. 68 of the Act, which as a pre-condition for discharge of onus by an assesse…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7870/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Co No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 Dcit – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Balbir Metals & Room No. 506, 5Th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar Mk Road, Mumbai. Bhavan, Pd Mello Road Carnac Bunder, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, Dr Appellant By : Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ca Ar Date Of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objections . First, We Shall Take Up The Revenue Appeal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ular Income tax returns of income and there are transactions through banking channel, no addition can be made by making surmises without having any contrary or cogent evidences in possession. 5.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Lovely Exports 6 DTR 308 has held "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders who's name are given to the Assessing Officer then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company". The Hon'ble Bombay High…

The ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Pankaj Enka Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 3050/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…fficer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.24,00,000/-. On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ClT. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learne…

Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Baljit Kaur, Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Pan – Ajxpk 8087H Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, 2010 (329) ITR 110 (Delhi), in which CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Limited, (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have stated that Swetu Stone Pvt. Ltd. is unidentifiable and, therefore, the aforesaid decisions should not be applied and the ratio of the decision dated 7th January, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7517/2010, AGR Investment Li…