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 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.

Tradelink Carrying Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

ITA 1636/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…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…

The ITO, Ward -2(2)(2), Surat vs. Smt. Hansaben Bipiinkumar Kothari, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)

…If it had any doubts with regard to their credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of creditors and/or sub-creditors. [See CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (20C 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)]." In view of the legal position explained in the above decisions, I hold that as fc the present case is concerned, the Assessee has indeed discharged its onus proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors. There was requirement in law for the Assessee to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the sub-creditors and th…

ITO 9 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Ashiana Homes Marts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5736/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Mody–Ld. AR
Section 68

…r, ill the context of share capital received from alleged bogus shareholders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally laid down the legal position as to whether additions can be made under section 68 of the Act, as under in case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195: "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 accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai vs. Brick and Byte Innovative Products Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4545/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjape –Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik –Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…n the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Anant Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (20 taxmann.com 153 2012) & the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Lovely 6 Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Brick & Byte Innovative Products Private Limited Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195). Since the assessee, in the opinion of learned first appellate authority, furnished requisite documents to prove the fulfilment of primary ingredients of Section 68, the loan credits could not be doubted and the additions made u/s 68 could not survive. Aggrieved by the said adjudication, the revenue is under further appeal before us. 4. We have…

Badrinath Steels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri V.Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 68

…Y.2006-07 is only Rs.97,180/-. The same is the pattern in the cases of Shri Ratan Kumar Sharma and Shri Anil Kumar Sharma. In the case of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, though the assessee relied on various decisions such as CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd., (2008) [216 CTR 195] (SC), the CIT(A) held that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Titan Securities Ltd., (2013) [84 CCH 184] (Delhi HC). 11.1. Finally, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO in favour of these three persons i.e., Shri P…

ITO, Ward - 13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 2102/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2102/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward-13(2), Kolkata.………….....................................…......……................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd..................................................................Respondent [PAN: AAECG 2832 R] C.O. No. 120/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd......................................................................Appellan…

Etal Enser Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(3), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 769/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 131Section 143(3)

…ook. The ld. AR in the submissions has argued on: • Counter-argued all the observations and reasons of the ITO AO • And relied on various many judicial decisions – most which cited the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lovely exports P Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) 5.4 Deliberation, Discussion, and, Appellate Decision: 5.4.1. Arguments – will only be arguments only, a plenty; what is core to this issue is simply – is it believable of the purported private subscription to share capital with astronomical premium thereon? This instant case depends crucially on the ‘creditworthiness’ of the purported 3 pri…

Shri Nareshbhai V Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT-33(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…e such a huge loan was given without any sufficient security and also held that similar was the position in the case of other loan creditors and finally dismiss the appeal by observing and holding as under: “Appellant has relied on CTT v Lovely Exports P Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC),CITv. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 330 ITR 298/194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) and other such cases. I have gone through the cases cited by the appellant. In the of cases relied by the appellant the Courts have held that once documents like PAN card, bank account details or details from the bankers were given by the assessee, onus shifts up…

Ocean Thermoplastics Elastomers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1) & 19(2), New Delhi

ITA 655/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

…rom the assessee by way of explanation is, (i) that he must establish the identity of the payer; (ii) that he must prove the creditworthiness of the payer, and (iii) that he must prove the genuineness of the transaction. In the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [216 CTR 195 SC] it was held 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 it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. The Hon'ble Jurisdicti…

Smt Jaya Sarda, Indore vs. Dy, CIT Circle -2(1), Indore

ITA 699/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2014-15

Section 44ASection 68

…was no confrontation at all. Therefore, it is submitted that the Revenue Authorities were not justified in making/sustaining the additions. In support of the plea, reliance is also placed on the following case-laws: 1. CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 (MP); 3. STL Extrusion P. Ltd., T.O. dated 10.5.2010 in IT(SS)A No.259/Ind/2008 (Indore Tribunal); 4. PCIT vs. Himachal Fibers Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC); 4 Smt. Jaya Sharda -SMC ITA 699 of 2018 5. PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency P. Ltd. (2018) 96 taxmann.com 403 (SC); 6. CIT vs. Peoples Gen…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 461/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., 309, 3Rd Floor, Plot Central Circle-18 Vs New Delhi No.13, Parmesh Corporate Towers Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 Pan No.Aabcl1391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2015 Of The Cit(A)-29, New Delhi Relating To A. Y. 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,87,82,139/- (Wrongly Mentioned By The Ao As 15.10.2010). A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out On 23.08.2012 In M/S. Land Craft Group Of Cases. The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered U/S. 132 (1)

Section 132Section 153Section 68

…e AO does not get substantiated. 11.7 The onus cast upon the appellant under section 68 of the Act with respect to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. 216 CTR 295. In the present case, not only the source but the source of source have also confirmed to have provided loans alongwith their credence such as PAN, ROI etc. The investigation made by investigation wing has also not come out with any adverse findings. Therefore, the onus on the appellant has been duly discharged to prove the creditworthiness and g…

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…share capital u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also by relied upon plethora of judgments, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 216 CTR 195, held that the assessee had filed enormous details to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties, but it was the AO who had failed to investigate the case properly, to rebutte details filed by the assessee to come to the conclusion that the credit in form of 14 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/2018 C.O.No. 74 & 76/Mum/2019 M…

Dcie Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Pali Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…share capital u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also by relied upon plethora of judgments, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 216 CTR 195, held that the assessee had filed enormous details to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties, but it was the AO who had failed to investigate the case properly, to rebutte details filed by the assessee to come to the conclusion that the credit in form of share capital is unexplained credit within the meaning of…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…share capital u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also by relied upon plethora of judgments, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 216 CTR 195, held that the assessee had filed enormous details to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties, but it was the AO who had failed to investigate the case properly, to rebutte details filed by the assessee to come to the conclusion that the credit in form of 14 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/2018 C.O.No. 74 & 76/Mum/2019 M…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Greeksoft Institute of Financial Market Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5867/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kirna Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ine. The onus cast upon the assessee under Section 68 of the Act; is 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 Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 295. The objective of Section 68 is to avoid inclusion of amount which are suspect. Therefore, the emphasis is on all the three aspects, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction which isproved by the assessee beyond doubt. 16. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee has proved all the three…

Vijay Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5754/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…shi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus the Dcit Central Circle-1, Jaipur ITA No. 481/JP/2016 2018. 5. Order in the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Versus Dcit ITA No. 3178/AHD/2009; 2010 ITAT, Ahemdabad. 6. Order in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) 7. Order in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bombay HC) 8. Order in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bombay HC) 9. Order in the case of PCIT v. Apeak Info Tech (2017) 397 ITR 148 (Bombay HC) 10. Order in the case of Cit Vs. Diamond Products Limited (2009) (Delhi) Page 4 o…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…is absent, then the AO can lawfully make addition.” 9 7 So far as the case of a company issuing shares vis-a-vis the burden cast u/s 68 in respect of share capital is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC), as well as of Stellar Investment (2001) 251 ITR 263 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 then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with the law, but, it cannot be regarded as undisclose…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.D.N.H.Spinners Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6315/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 68

…uine. The onus cast upon the assessee under Section 68 of the Act is 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 Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 295. Whilst, the A.O. acted legitimately in enquiring into the matter, the inferences drawn by him were not justified at all in the circumstances of the case. The objective of Section 68 is to avoid inclusion of amount which are suspect. Therefore, the emphasis is on genuineness of all the three aspects, identity, creditworthiness and the transaction…

Dct - CC- 5(2), Mumbai vs. Kaygee Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 3539/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Srinivas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Hari S. Raheja/ Sh Mani Jain, ARs
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 68

…PIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3540/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Appellant Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai v/s M/s Kaygee Investments Pvt Ltd 203A, Vastu Prestige, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai ……………. Respondent PAN-AAACK2876M Assesseeby : Sh. Srinivas, CIT-DR Revenue by :Sh. Hari S. Raheja/ Sh Mani Jain, ARs Date of Hearing –13.06.2019 Date of Order - 31.07.2019 O R D E R PER: MANJUNATHA G. These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed…

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Mamta Glod Private Limited (Earlier Known As Praveen Jewelers Private Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 7006/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…cants. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal in this regard, learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee has provided all necessary details. Learned CIT(A) also referred to several case laws including Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(394 ITR 680) another decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd (ITXA 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017). Learned CIT(A) concluded as under :- 3 M/s. Mamta Gold Pvt. Ltd. In the case of Orchid Industries P Ltd (supra). L…