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 366,005 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.

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…hs received by assessee from various corporate entities-Addition was made by AO on account of bogus share application money under provisions of s 68— CIT(A) deleted addition made by AO-Held, in case of CIT vs. M/s. Lovely Exports (Pvt) Ltd, reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), it was held that If share application money was received by assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose name were given to AO then department was free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but it could not be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company─It was submitted by assessee that AO…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…credit. If the company fails to discharge the additional onus, the sum shall be treated as income of the company and added to its income". 77. The judicial pronouncements referred in the Memorandum, inter alia, include ♦ CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) The onus cast upon the assessee company was discharged upon disclosure of the names and particulars of the alleged bogus shareholders. It was for the Department to conduct its own enquiry ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 58 of 158 thereafter and additions if any may be made in the hands of the shareholders. ♦ CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001]…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Shivom Trexim Private Limited, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2396/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 2396/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Shivom Trexim Private Ltd., Ward-1, Room No.203, Vs. Plot No.26, Sector-25, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-6, Huda Part-Ii, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aapcs8392H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

…ITANo.2396/Del/2024 SHIVOM TREXIM PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 2396/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVOM TREXIM PRIVATE LTD., Ward-1, Room No.203, Vs. Plot No.26, Sector-25, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-6, HUDA PART-II, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana. Haryana. PAN No.AAPCS8392H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Sanjay Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 18.08.2025 26.09…

Annuva Infrastructure Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 84/NAG/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryannuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur. Ltd., Plot No.1249, Near Sindhu Bhawan, Vs. Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-440017. Pan: Aahca 0371 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…f the considered opinion that more or less Assessee has been able to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness in order to discharge the onus casted u/sec. 68 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) has also dealt with identical issue and held “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 the appella…

M/S. Hhp Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Hhp Hospital Private Ltd, Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 2406, Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084 Pan No. Aabch 2642 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 04.01.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 313 Days, For Which Condonation Petition Is Filed. At The Time Of Hearing The Counsel Of The Assessee Explained The Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Ld. A.R Did Not Raise Any Objection In Condoning The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

…ors in accordance with law but the sum received from the loan creditors cannot be regarded as income of the assessee. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [(2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)]. 10. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition towards share capital including share premium 8 ITANo.280/Kol/2025 received from the above said three companies as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. The ld. C…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…he onus on the assessee to establish the source of source, which was not the law in the A.Y. 2009-10, to which the present appeal pertains. In this regard, she relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Limited, 216 CTR 195 (SC) and submitted that the Department was free to proceed with the individual assessment of the shareholders, if the source of source was not explained. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had discharged the initial burden to establish the identity of the shareholders and also established their creditworthiness. Therefore, no addition on acco…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…tio equally applies to the facts of assessee's case: i) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335(SC). ii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd., vs. CI…

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2190/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…io equally applies to the facts of assessee's case: i) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335(SC). ii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd., vs.…

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2105/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…nal High Court and Jurisdictional Tribunal as under: i) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335(SC). ii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd., vs. CI…

Suman Forwarding Agency Private Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1432/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…action lies squarely on the appellant when a sum is found credited in its books as per section 68 of the Act. This principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278) and reiterated in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), wherein it was held that failure to discharge this threefold onus invites addition under section 68. In the present case, despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to produce the directors of M/s Gajmurti Agency Pvt. Ltd. No agreement, communication, or rationale for such a substantial investment in a private limited company was pres…

Income Tax Officer Ward 52(1) New Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Novel Infratech, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…had any doubts with regard to their credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of the creditors and/or 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)). M/s. Novel Infratech 39. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd., etc. ITA. No.71 of 2015 dated 12th August, 2015 held as under: "The sole basis for the Revenue to doubt their creditworthiness was the low income as reflected in their return of income. It was observed by the ITAT that the Assessing Of…

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

ITA 883/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

…al High Court and Jurisdictional Tribunal as under: i) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335(SC). ii) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd.,…

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

ITA 876/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

Koma Singhal, Dehradun vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…1 KomaSinghal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “DEHRADUN” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 59/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Koma Singhal Vs. DCIT/ACIT 34F, Narendra Vihar Central Circle Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248001 Uttarakhand PAN: BNIPS9413P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Harshit Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee challenging t…

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

…s concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;one such decision was rendered in "M/sPullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v.State of Kerala And Another" [1973] 19 ITR 18." We are citing the case law in the matter of CIT V. Lovely Exports(P.) Ltd (2008)216 CTR 195(SC)[ refer compilation of case law page no 104] Wherein The Apex court 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 assessments in accordance with law but this amount o…

Gupta Ashok Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 376/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 68

…fficer should bring on record some evidence to disbelieve the claim of the assessee to make addition under section 68 of the Act. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Lovely exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 (SC), where it has been clearly held that, once the assessee has filed the relevant evidences 21 ITA.No.376/Hyd./2024 to prove identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, then, the sum received from the loan creditors cannot be regarded as unexplained or unaccounted income of the assessee and the Departme…

C P Metaliks Private Limited, G.T. Road Bhiringee vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1482/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 250Section 68

…ings (ingredients) viz. i) Identity of the Investor ii) Capacity of the Investor to Invest money and iii) Genuineness of the transaction. CP Metaliks Private Limited; AY 2009-10 6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. - 216 CTR 195(SC), while dealing with the issue of applicability of section 68 on receipt of share capital and burden of proof on the assessee, held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from al- leged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Depart- ment is free to proceed to reopen their individual asses…

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan vs. Shri Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Rander

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

…ssessee had relied on the following decisions to canvass the proposition that ITA No.716/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made without considering evidences submitted by the assessee: (i) CIT vs. Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 (SC), (ii) CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhva, 208 Taxman 35 (Guj.), (iii) Earch Metal Electrical Pvt. Ltd., SLP 2107/2009 (SC), (iv) Darshan Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 134 taxmann.com 188 (Guj.), (v) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 127 Taxman 523 (Guj.), (vi) CIT vs. Lalitkumar Poddar, 56 Taxman 462 (Del) and (vii) Mansukh E. Vagasia vs. ITO, 139 Taxman…