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.

M/S. Matarani Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 15(1), Kolkata

ITA 343/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)

…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 AY 2012-13 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 hearin…

Ins Finance & Investment P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 12(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 9266/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(1)Section 68

…— "The onus cast upon the assessee under Section 68 of the Act to satisfy the department about the true identity of an investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of a transaction was explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., [2008] 216 CTR 195,. Whilst, the AO acted legitimately in enquiring into the matter, the inferences drawn by him were not justified at all in the circumstances of the case. Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance. Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.N.Jp Trading Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 6040/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 15(2)(1), M/S. N.J.P Trading Room No.357, Company, 3Rd Floor, B-12, 2N Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Navin Manjau, M.K. Road, S.L. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aaccn2258A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mari Jain, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.06.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Only Effective Issue Raised By The Revenue In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mari Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT 15(2)(1), M/s. N.J.P Trading Room No.357, Company, 3rd Floor, B-12, 2N Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Navin Manjau, M.K. Road, S.L. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080 PAN: AACCN2258A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mari Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…persons who have subscribed to share application/share capital of a corporate entity is established, no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made in hands of such corporate assesse. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements. CIT v Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195. The relevant extract of the judgment is under: “Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT 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 A…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bygging India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1482/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 9(2)(1), M/S. Bygging India Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 9, R.N.A. Arcade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, M.K. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaacb0642E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R

Section 115JSection 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT 9(2)(1), M/s. Bygging India Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., 2nd Floor, 9, R.N.A. Arcade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, M.K. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400053 PAN: AAACB0642E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Satish R. Mody, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appe…

ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dhankamal Commosaes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2089/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…This case is distinguishable from the case of C.I.T. v. Lovely Expos Pvt. Ltd., 26. This case is distinguishable from the case of C.I.T. v. Lovely Expos Pvt. Ltd., 26. This case is distinguishable from the case of C.I.T. v. Lovely Expos Pvt. Ltd., reported in 216 CTR 195, in that the transactions were only book reported in 216 CTR 195, in that the transactions were only book reported in 216 CTR 195, in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decision transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions in (i) Commissioner s in (i) Commissioner of Income Tax v. F…

Shri Ashok Kumar A. Banthia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2195/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ashok Kumar A. Banthia, The Ito 24(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S A.B. Enterprises, R. No. 605, 6Th Floor, 601/2, Giri Residency Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 88/91, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400012 J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aabpb9970H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ashok Kumar A. Banthia, The ITO 24(1)(2), Prop. Of M/s A.B. Enterprises, R. No. 605, 6th Floor, 601/2, Giri Residency CHS Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 88/91, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400012 J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 PAN: AABPB9970H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra (AR) Revenue by : Shri Michael Jerald (DR) Date of Hearing: 24/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This ap…

M/S Intent Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(2), Kolkata

ITA 2179/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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…

M/S Omkar Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 896/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Rukmani Agencies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cent.Cir-5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2562/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmarukmani Agencies Private Vs. D.C.I.T., Limited, Central Circle-5(1), 4Th Floor, Silver Metropolis, 19Th Floor, Air India Jaicoach Compound, Building, Nariman Point, Opposite Bimbisar Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Western Express, Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan/Gir No.Aaacr 4998 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions made

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…sions of section 56(2)(viib) has no application. 15. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judgements, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). In the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the issue 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…

Blooming Tradelink (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2691/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Electro Polychem Ltd., (supra) and Steller Investment Ltd., (supra). 26. This case is distinguishable from the case of CIT v. Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions in (i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 46/228 Taxman 88 (Delhi) (Mag.); (ii) CIT v. Globus Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 465/224 Taxman 237 (Delhi); (iii) Onassis Axles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 364 ITR…

Income Tax Officer 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. East Asiatic Infrastructure Corp. Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5884/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah, D.R

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

…t conducted any further enquiry except making the addition on presumption and surmises. The 3 M/s. East Asiatic Infrastructure Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Private Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of Osis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del. HC) which was passed after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Private Ltd. (supra). Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) observed and held as under: “5.10 In view of the legal position emanating from lega…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 930/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 153A

…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 learned…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 929/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 153A

…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 learned…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…section 68 are fully satisfied. Moreover, the money has transferred through banking channel and thus all the evidences are on record. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that once the assessee has given names and identity of the shareholders, the onus upon it gets discharged and no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee and the onus shifts to the department and if the department thought it to be appropriate, the Act permitted the tax department to proceed against…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5133/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 which is effective from A.Y 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the assessee company as the year involved is A.Y 2009-10. The ld. AR in defence of his arguments, relied heavily on the order of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2208) 216 CTR 195(SC), CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1613 of 2014 (Bom- HC), CIT vs. Haresh D Mehta 407 ITR 492, CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298( Delhi HC). 10 Varad Vinayak Estates P. Ltd. ITA No.5820/MUM/2016 & ITA No.5133/MUM/2017 & CO No.166 & 167/Mum/2019 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 8. After hearing both…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5820/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…d. AR specifically in the light of few recent decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of M/s Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 and Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. as well as the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 216 ITR 195 wherein the Supreme Court has held that “if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO than the Department is free to reopen their assessments in accordance with law”. This decision was delivered while 7 ITO vs Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. dismissing the s…

M/S. Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned Ld. CIT(1) on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ud reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received. 3.4. 1. We also find th…

DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Blue Square Corporate Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO of the assessee as well as appeal of Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 2061/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 2061/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Blue Square Corporate Income Tax Officer, Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(1)(2), Room No. 103, 10Th Floor, Yugdharma, बनाम/ 223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Off Link Road, Goregaon Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai-20 (West), Mumbai-400 062 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadcb4038M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 273/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 2061/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10) M/S Blue Square Corporate The Dy. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 103, 10Th Floor, Yugdharma, Circle-12(1)(2), Room No. बनाम/ Off Link Road, Goregaon 223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 062 Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai-20 (आपत्ति करनेवाला / Cross Objector) (प्रत्यर्थी/ मूल अपीलार्थी / Respondent/Orig. Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, AR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 2061/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Blue Square Corporate Income Tax Officer, Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(1)(2), Room No. 103, 10th floor, Yugdharma, बनाम/ 223, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Off Link Road, Goregaon Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai-20 (West), Mumbai-400 062 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appel…