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.

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 195)

Income Tax Officer 12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Cymbal Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-12(1)(4) M/S Cymbal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145A, B-204, Kesar Baug, L.T. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Borivali (East), Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400092. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaecc7675C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar (AR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…tity of the creditor by providing their PAN and shows the transaction is through banking channel, then the onus to prove the act contrary would ship to the revenue. On the decision of honorable Supreme Court in case of CIT Versus Lovely Exports Private Ltd (216 CTR 195), wherein 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 assessing officer, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee co…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Mahesh Mordia, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 545/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…evidences filed by the lender. Whatever action is to be taken can only be taken in the hands of lender, the person who has given loan Some of the judgments supporting this view are: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195, found the additions unsustainable; and proceeded to delete the same. He Hon'ble court observed as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit - 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…

Bla Power Holding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271Section 68Section 69C

…ned cash credit u/s 68 of the Act made during the re-assessment proceedings. The amount was received by account payee cheque(s) on account of the share capital; the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd [216 CTR 195] and host of other judgments including Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Creative World Telefilms Ltd.[333 ITR 100| and Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd. (unreported) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,00,000 being 1% of the share capital money raised (n…

M/S Galley Financiers & Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Patiala vs. ITO, Patiala

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

ITA 51/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.51/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए ”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.51/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Galley Financiers & The Income Tax Officer, बनाम Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1, Patiala. 4154/1, Inside Sirhindi Gate, Patiala. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCG3381J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Rishabh Kapoor, Adv. राज"व क" ओ…

M/S. Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3097/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Cit C/O N. K. Jain, Advocate Naya Vs Hisar Bazar, Bhiwani Pan No. Aaccd1951E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Ca Shri Ashu Goyal, Ca Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2019 Order

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…7 on 13.12.2011 at the returned income without making any addition. While doing so he accepted the plea of the assessee on the basis of various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd reported in 216 CTR 195 that if the identity of the investors is established, the assessment in the case of the investors can be re-opened as per law but no addition can be made in the hands of the company who has received the share application money. He accordingly dropped the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 and accepted the returned income. 4. The L…

I.T.O. 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ami Housing & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2926/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2926/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito – 1(1)(1), M/S Ami Housing & R. No. 534/579, 5Th Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhava, M. K. Road, 102, Manratna Business Mumbai-400 020 Park, Tilak Road, Vs. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 077. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aagaca4872M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : C.O. No. 310/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Ami Housing & Ito – 1(1)(1), R. No. 534/579, 5Th Developers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 102, Manratna Business Park, Floor, Aayakar Bhava, Vs. Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (E), M. K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 077. 400 020 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Harkamal Soni & Shri S. Rajore, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Pravin R. Raiyani, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11/04/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Harkamal Soni &For Respondent: Shri Pravin R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…en their individual assessments in accordance with law but this amount of share money can not be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the appellant company. Respectfully following the Hon. Apex Court decision in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and also Hon’ble ITAT decision in the case of Green Infra Ltd., I direct the AO to delete the addition made of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. 9. After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and submissions made by both the parties, we find from the records that AO had made the a…

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Mayuresh Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6691/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6691/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) In The Matter Of:

For Appellant: Shri D. G. Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…rties directly. The Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of report received from investigation wing, the copy whereof is also not given to the Appellant. 8.12) The Appellant rely on the following decisions: i) CIT v/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) Hi) CIT v/s Green Infra Ltd., 392 ITR 7 (Bombay) iv) Pr. CIT v/s Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 43 & 44 of 2016 (www.itatonline.org) v) Pr. CIT v/s Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., ITA No. 169 of 2017 (www.itatonline.org). 8.13) A proviso is added to section…

ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Luxtra Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6202/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Ito-15(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Room No.802, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Old Cgo Building Off. Eastern Express Highway M.K.Road, Near Checknaka Mumbai – 400 020 Mulund (E), Mumbai- 400081 Pan/Gir No.Aabco3197J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 68

…case of Mod Creations (P) Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 354 ITR 282. c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd., reported in 299 ITR 268. d. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., reported in 216 CTR 195 (SC) 3.4. The ld. CIT(A) further observed as under:- 2.4.7 If above referred principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration, it becomes absolutely clear that the appellant had discharged its onus and burden of proof. Not only had it furnished the trail of banking transactions, it had also produced copies of…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

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

…r credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of the creditors and/or ITA Nos. 1077 to 1081/Del/2019 34 sub-creditors. [See CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)]." 38. That in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 at page 359, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The explanation furnished about the source of Rs. 5,00,000 in fixed deposit in the name of Biswanath was that he had kept an amount of Rs. 4,50,000 with M/s. Soorajmal Nagarmal and Rs. 50,000 in deposit with Co…

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Lucas Meyer Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-12(3)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Lucas Meyer Industries Pvt Ltd 205/D, Veena Nagar, Chincholi Road Malad W), Mumbai 400 064 Pan : Aaacl6818N Appellant Respondednt

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

…not genuine. 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. Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 295. Whilst, the A.O. acted legitimately in Jnto the matter, the inferences drawn by him were not justified at all in 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 here was whether the amount invested by the shar…

Dhara Motor Finance Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Najibabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2442/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 68

…ss of the Share Applicants and genuineness of transaction, beyond doubt. 3. FOR THAT the issue relating to the raising of share capital is concluded in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company. 4. FOR THAT the reasoning given by the CIT(A) for enhancement of addition made by the Assessing Officer is motivated and her action is out of mere suspicion and not based on records. 5. FOR THAT the Hon’ble CIT(A) could not bring on record an…

ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Consultshah Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6893/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeed Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S Consultshah 12(1)(4), Room No. 145A, Vs. Financial Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 426, 4Th Floor, Road, Churchgate, Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Mumbai-400020. Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aadcc3362K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, Ars Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…or by the AO were duly filed by the share applicants before the AO, but the assessee failed to produce the share applicants before the AO. In view of the above observations, the Ld. CIT(A) relying specifically on the decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 295, Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (In ITA No. 2182 of 2009 decided on October 12, 2009) [2011] 333 ITR 100, CIT v. V.P. Mohanakala [2017] 291 ITR 278, CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), concluded that when requisite documents such as PAN, bank accounts, balance sh…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 17 M/s. Re n Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) and the order of the Apex Court in case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195. 4. We have considered the submissions. 5. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses give…