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.

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2688/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…the assessee are reproduced hereunder:- i. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd (13/02/2012) Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (High Court-Bombay) ii. CIT vs. Creative World Tele films Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Born-High Court) iii. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) iv. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) (civil appeal) v. CIT vs. Nav Bharat Duolex Ltd (2013) 35 Taxmann.com289 (All-High Court) vi. CIT vs. JayDee Securities & Finance Ltd (2013) 32 Taxmann.com91 (All-High Court) vii. ACIT vs. Venkateshwarlspat Pvt Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhatisgarh-High Court) viii. Mod Creations Pvt L…

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2687/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Kanchan Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Jalpaiguri

ITA 2411/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Gateway Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 68

…vailable on record. Assailing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. DR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has 2 M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 granted relief mainly by relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC). However, according to Ld. DR, the said decision is not applicable in the instant case as Lovely Exports Ltd. was a Public Limited Company and the assessee M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd. is not a public limited company. According to him, it is a well-settled legal position that every case depends on its own facts and the ratio of any judgemen…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Savitri Share and Securities Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1703/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 68

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

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2088/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Ccolhut Marketing Ward-6(1), P-7, Pvt. Ltd., 5, Clive Row, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001 6Th Floor, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaecc 7664 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.K. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri V.K. Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23 Kolkata’S Order Dated 03.07.2017 Passed In Case No.181 Cit(A)-23/Wd-6(1)/16-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Canvassing In Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting The Sec. 68 Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credits Amounting To ₹252,00,000/- Lac In The Nature Of Share Capital / Premium Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Dated 13.03.2015. Learned Cit-Dr Vehemently Contends During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Made The Impugned Addition Which Ought To Have Been Affirmed In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee On The Other Hand Files Before Us A Copy Of Assessing Officer’S

Section 131Section 142Section 144Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer, V/s. M/s Ccolhut Marketing Ward-6(1), P-7, Pvt. Ltd., 5, Clive Row, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001 6th Floor, Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAECC 7664 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.K. Singh, CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri V.K. Jain, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 26-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R…

M/S. Access Global Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 13/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S. M Surana, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 144(1)Section 68

…the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electro Polychem Ltd., supra, and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Steller Investment Ltd., supra. 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 transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions in (i) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 90 CCH 0105 (Delhi); (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Globus Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 264 CTR 481 (Del h i) ; (iii) Onassis Axles Private L…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.F.A.Infrstructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5888/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri G. Manjunatha, () Dcit-12(1)(1), Mumbai M/S Fa Infrastructure Ltd. Plot No.112, 1St Floor, Opp. Vs. Hotel Oriental Palace, 6Th Road, Tps Iii Khar(W), Mumbai-400052 Panaabcf2359P Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 68

…de u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld.CIT (A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relying upon various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 216 CTR 295 (SC) deleted addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee has discharged its onus by filing various documents including identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. Once the initial burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, has been discharged, then the onus shifts on the revenue to prove otherwis…

ITO 7(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Homeshine Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2231/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2231/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra, SrFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Lalka, AR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 78(2)

…aid-up capital. In the case of CIT v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (59 ITR 865), it had been held that premium realized on issue of shares is not in the nature of a revenue receipt and is hence not chargeable to tax. In the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195), it had been held that no addition can be contemplated in the hands of the assessee-company even when share-holders have been held to be bogus. It is noteworthy that share-holders have not even been held to be bogus in the case at hand. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court too had occasion to go into this matter in its decision rendered in the case of…

Capri Global Advisory Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 170/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Jitendra Jain/Mahesh Rajora-Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.DR

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

…pending before Hon'ble Bombay High Court? vi. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by relying on the decision of Apex court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 216 CTR 195(SC) without appreciating that the facts in the instant case were different than those in the case relied upon, as in the instant case, the AO did not sit idle but made investigations with the share holder before making an adverse inference and hence the case law relied upon is not applicable in this case?" As evident from respective grounds of a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5638/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri V.C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…unsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 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…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…09) 26 DTR (Del.) 358, and (v) Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 179 Taxmnan 25. wherein the Hon 'bie Delhi High Court has observed as under: - "In any event we also note that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (F) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 considered the question as to whether the share application money can be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court dismissing the SLP observed that if the share money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Dep…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai vs. Calvin Properties, Mumbai

ITA 6561/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, AR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…assessee produces evidences about identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the tender onus of proof shifts to the revenue." 18 I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 M/s Calvin Properties 2.4.8 The Honble 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 Js n…

ITO, WD-2(1), Siliguri, Darjeeling vs. M/S Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

ITA 1038/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1038/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Aangan Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aabce 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department By : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh ChothaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…shed by attending circumstances. Once the assessee produces evidences about identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the lender onus of proof shifts to the Revenue". Also, 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 at least on protective basis. On the other hand the appellant has filed the followi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…s well as High Court has held that once the identity of creditor is established, the department is free to reopen the assessment of creditor and no addition can be made in the hand of borrower as rightly held in case of CIT v/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rock Fort Metal & Minerals Ltd. [2011] 198 TAXMAN 497 (Delhi), Divine Leasing & Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) and others on this question of law. 6.11 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

M/S Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 308/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 68

…1 Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd. , AY 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 308/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 M/s. Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-2(2), Kolkata (PAN: AAJCA4713C) Appellant Respondent For the Appellant Shri M. D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 08.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal of t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mridul Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6917/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Mridul Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ward-17(2), New Delhi H-108, Connaught Circus, Delhi Pan :Aaacm1124A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Mridul Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ward-5(4), New Delhi H-108, Connaught Circus, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm1124A (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Seth, Ar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…s of the documents filed of M/s Hillridge investment limited including copy of return of income, audited balance sheet, bank statement, copy of assessment order etc and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs lovely export Private Limited (216 ITR 195 )(SC) and other decisions cited by the assessee, he deleted both the additions. 3.9 Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee filed only documents in the form of the paper trail and the said party was not produced before the Assessing Offic…