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.

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…s also. i.e, AY are distinguishable in 2014-15 & AY 2015-16(Page facts(Page –, 27, Para - – 4, Para 4.12). 4.2.3.6 – CIT(A)’s Order).  The assessee has ignored the valuation criteria of past  CIT(A) distinguished Lovely performance for valuation of Exports [216 CTR 195] and the company(Page – 4, Para Gourdin Herbals India Ltd 4.12). ITA No. 665/2009 dated Sep  The registered office of the 17, 2009 investor companies (Winfiled and Quadrel) are Case laws relied upon by the located in Dilshad Garden CIT(A) and West Vinod Nagar (situated in east Delhi) but • NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd [96 they have sent the part DTR 028…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ITO-15(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Satyam Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 373/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनाम/ Ito 15(3)(3) Satyam Roller Flour Mills R. No.452, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R-12, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai-400020. Midc Near Rabale Telephone Exchange, Navi Mumbai-400701. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs4131R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 10Section 132Section 143(2)Section 28Section 68

…circumstances. Once the assessee produces evidences about identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the lender onus of proof shifts to the Revenue.” 7 A.Y.2013-14 Fifthly, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Private Limited, (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC), has stated that the AO is at liberty to bring to tax the amounts in their respective hands of the creditors if their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness is not proved. The AO should have made efforts to assess the amounts In the hands of the creditors gy least on protective basis. Lastly, even if the creditworthiness of the additions…

M/S Hinal Estate Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 10, Mumbai

ITA 7938/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.7938 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Hinal Estate Private Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of A-1 Hinal Estate, Patel Wadi, Vs. Income Tax-10, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, S.V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 057 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan No. Aabch6287J (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri. Naresh Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2021

For Appellant: Shri. Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Principal CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steller Investment Ltd. [2000 (7) TMI 76] and CIT vs. Lovely Exports [(2008) 216 CTR 195], wherein it was stated that, revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be exercised for allegation of non- genuineness of share capital and if at all, the alleged share capital was bogus, the same can be added in the hands of shareholders and not in the hands of the appellant company. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,…

Acs Traders (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

ITA 467/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 263

…icer 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 Cl. T. 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…

Fizaan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(1), Kolkata

ITA 166/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

…Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.24,00,000/-. 14 | P a g e Fizaan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. 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…

Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhari (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…he credit, and their identity was established, the addition, if it had to be made, should have been considered in the hands of the creditors. This is the import of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders , whose names are given to the assessing officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as und…

Shri Gulab Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 54F

…cash is explained to have been received. He relied on the following decisions: (i) Nek Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 274 ITR 575 20 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) (ii) of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 (iii) 283 ITR 377 (Raj.) Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. ACIT (iv) 159 ITR 78 (SC) Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd 11. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record we noticed that the assessee had deposited a s…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 6521/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 1102/1103, Express Zone Vs. Old CGO Building A Wing, Patel Vatika Annexe, 8th Floor Off Western Express M.K. Road Highway, Malad-East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 097. PAN : ASRPR4293B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 6960/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sneha Rajesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 2202 A, Lakshchandi Vs. Old CGO B…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Brindavan Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5272/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anil Chaturvedi[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kr. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dube, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…tion 68 of the I T Act and the judgments delivered in the cases of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del), CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 4 (Del) (FB), CIT vs. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190, CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195, it was held that the initial burden is upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of share application money received by it. The Court further observed that in case the investor / shareholder is an individual, some documents will have to be filed or the said shareholder will have to be produced before the assessing officer to prove his i…

Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-13(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4100/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.4100 & 4101/M/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Shakti Share The Income-Tax Officer, Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(2)(3), B-302, Rangoli Vasant Aayakar Bhavan, Utsav, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Thakur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 PAN: AAACS 9220 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 O R D E R Per Raj…

DCIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ld., Bhilwara

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 279/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav- Ld. CIT- DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…ls. All the investor companies were having sufficient sources to make investments and therefore, invocation of provisions of Sec. 68 was unjustified. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 to oppose any addition u/s 68. However, not convinced, Ld. AO treated the share money so received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3.5 The assessee had debited certain expenses under the head printing & stationery, office expenses, vehicle expenses, repair maintenance & telephone…

M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.to., Ward-2(1), Burdman

ITA 501/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/S. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [Pan No.Aabcl 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S Moongipa Development and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range -7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 625/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Moongipa Development बिधम/ Dcit Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6Th Floor & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Jp Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.625/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita Nos. 625 & 626/M/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)

Section 127Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…ient evidence on record. Moreover no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee. However, in support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the following law.:- 1. CIT Vs. Loverly Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) 2. PCIT Vs. Himachal Fibers Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. Bharat Securities P. Ltd. (2020) 13 taxmann.com 32 (SC) 4. PCIT Vs. Rohtak Chain Co. P. Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC) 5. PCIT Vs. Ami Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1231 of 2017 6. CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA. No.1613 of 2014 (Bom) 7. CIT Vs. Orchid In…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…ns only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that too, without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the parties. In this regard, we relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd vs CIT 216 CTR 295(SC). The AO has brought out facts in the light of statement of Shri Pravinkumar Agarwal & others deposed before the Investigation Wing to make addition 85 that is also you may related to two companies. Except this, there is no contrary evidence in the possession of the AO to disprove the loan transactions from these seven parties on the other han…

M/S Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

ITA 2020/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 250Section 68

Smt. Meera Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…cer to prove that the alleged cash creditors were bogus, however, he grossly failed in discharging his onus. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments in this regard :- S. Particulars Citation Hon’ble Court / No. Tribunal 1 CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P. 216 CTR 195 Supreme Court Ltd.(2008) 2 CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & 2006 taxman Delhi High alloyes Ltd.(2012) 254 Court 3 CIT Vs. Arunananda 15 taxman.com Karnataka High textiles(P) Ltd.(2011) 226 Court 4 CIT Vs. Dwrakadhish 194 Taxman 43 Delhi high Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) Court 5 CIT Vs. Value Capital 307 ITR 334 Delhi High Services (P) Ltd. (2008) Court 1.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Almega Paints Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 6267/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Almega Paints Pvt. Ltd., Tax - 15(1)(1), B-24, Minerva Industrial Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Estate, Off P.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mulund (W), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca3698N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 143Section 68

…lender can be established by attending circumstances. Once the assessee produces evidences about identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender onus of proof shifts to the revenue." 2.4.8 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd. 216 CTR 195(SC) 2008 held that the AO is at liberty to bring to tax the amounts in their respective hands of the investors if their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness is not proved. The AO should have made efforts to assess the amounts in the hands of the investors at least on protective basis. Even in case, the creditworthiness of the investors is n…