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 366,416 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.

ITO 4(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Cincom Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4520/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Rutuja Pawar

Section 133(6)Section 68

…company." 9. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee has submitted all the necessary details of the parties providing the loans. He referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). He referred to certain case laws for the proposition that the share premium cannot be treated as revenue receipt. He referred to the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Green Infra Ltd. vs. ITO 159 TTJ 728 (Trib-Mum). He also found that the provision of section 56(2)(viia) and 56(2)(viib) cannot be applied for the impugned assessme…

Sunshine Metals & Alloys Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3212/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

…re was no withdrawal of funds for purposes mentioned as per the reasons for reopening • That the share application and premium monies cannot be added in the hands of the assessee in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 and CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd 299 1TR 268 • The amounts received by the assessee as share application and premium are fully and properly explained. The AR concluded the submission in the following words: awe hope the above details are sufficed to complete the assessment at an earlier date 13 No other requests were made by the AR and…

Anju Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1322/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

….O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. ii. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: “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. ” iii. Dec…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133ASection 68

…e of Labh chand Bohra (219 CTR 571) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (iv) Delhi High Court in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268) (v) Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) (vi) Bombay High Court in the case of Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (333 ITR 100 (vii) Allahabad High Court in the case of Vacmet Packaging (India) P. Ltd. dated 11-02-2014 [2014-TIOL-297-HC-ALL-IT] (viii) Delhi High Court in the case of Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (307 ITR 334) (ix) Mumbai ITAT in the case of Netscape Software Ltd. v. DCIT –…

M/S Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…M/s. Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward.1(1)(3)/SRT/I.T.A. No. 161/SRT/2018/A.Y.12-13 Page 1 of 24 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, , , , लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.161/SRT/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Kamal Rayon Private Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1) (3), Surat. 1003, New Sardar Traders Market, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395010 [PAN: AAMCS 3194 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओ…

M/S Stationery Point India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Com. of Income Tax-9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3101/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Stationery Point India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of E.S. Crystal Lawn, 1St Floor Income Tax - 9(3) Vs. Near Mega Mart Showroom Mumbai Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400101 Pan – Aafcs3137G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Haresh P. Shah Respondent By: Shri V. Justin Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai, Dated 27.02.2016 & It Relates To A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Flexible Packaging For Consumer Products, Wire Products Like Staple Pins, U-Clips, Etc. The Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 30Th September, 2011 Showing Total Income At `4,55,12,480/-. The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 30Th March, 2014 Was Passed Thereby Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At `6,06,85,950/- Thereby Making Additions/Disallowances Under Different Heads. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Cit(A) & The Cit(A), After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Partly Allowed The Appeal. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Cit(A) Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal Before Us On The Grounds Mentioned Below: -

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 6n

…raised by him before the learned CIT(A). It was also pointed out that similar addition made in A.Y. 2006-07 in assessee’s own case was deleted by the learned CIT(A) after following the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC). It was also submitted that the ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 7 M/s. Stationery Point India Ltd. 1162/Mum/2010 dated 18.04.2012 had deleted similar addition. However, the learned CIT(A), while deciding this ground, has not discussed the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein identical ground has already b…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaidka Woolen & Hossiery Mills P Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5302/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R

…elhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd., (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del.), confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and other decisions to prove that it was a genuine loan taken by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of assessee and material on record, deleted the entire addition. His findings at page-15 of the appellate order are reproduced as under : “Ground No.5: The appellant had taken interest free loan from its sister concern S…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Advent Stock Management Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1647/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Kolkata…………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Vs. M/s. Advent Stock Management Ltd…..……………………........……….......……….…..………...Respondent 2nd Floor Anand Lok Building 227, AJC Bose Road Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AADCA 7256 J] Appearances by: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing :…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sohail Financials Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4867/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3643M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…ee coy, it has given cash to receive the accommodation entries by way of cheque, in the form share application money, as admitted by Sh. Tarun Goval and his associates in his statement recorded by the Investigation Wing. In the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195(SC), CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2008) 2 DTR (Del) 7 (167 TAXMANN 321) and CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi), the shareholders had not denied the fact that they had contributed to the share capital of the company. In the case of the assessee company, the shareholders have admitted the fact that they are…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Mulpuri Foods and Feds Pvt. Ltd., Nuzividu

ITA 292/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.292 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) The Acit Vs. M/S Mulpuri Foods & Circle-3(1) Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada No.3-93, Ramannagudem Vattigudipadu Post Nuzvid [Pan : Aagcm2045J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 68

…ppeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the share application money was allotted to the respective shareholders and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Explorts Pvt.Ltd. [216 CTR 195] and further held that the share 4 I.T.A. No.292 /Viz/2017 M/s Mulpuri Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Nuzvid application money cannot be taxed in the hands of the company and the AO is free to assess the same in the hands of the individuals. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department carried the matter to the Tribunal. During the a…

ITO 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Darshan Realtors P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4009/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2)(2), M/S Darshan Realtors R. No.562, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ M. K. Road, Churchgate, Omakar House, Off Vs. Mumbai-400020 Eastern Highway, Opp.Sion, Chunnabhatti Siugnal Sion (East), Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aadcd4673N C.O. No.299/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4009/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Darshan Realtors Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. 6(2)(2), बनाम/ Omakar House, Off Eastern R. No.562, Aayakar Vs. Highway, Opp.Sion, Bhavan, Chunnabhatti Signal Sion M. K. Road, Churchgate, (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400022 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aadcd4673N

Section 133(6)Section 37Section 53Section 54Section 73

…res were allotted against the amounts received, vide return of allotment dated 29.06.2004, filed with ROC. 10. The appeal was allowed by the CIT (Appeals) deleting the additions made by the AO, inter alia, relying upon CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The Revenue having preferred appeal (ITA No. 4839/Del/2009), to which the assessee had also filed counter-objection (No. 103/Del/2011), was unsuccessful before ITAT. 11. The ITAT has noted in the impugned order that in the case of reassessment, the assessee had been asked to show the identity and genuineness of the share applicants and cre…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

….O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. ii. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: “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 19 law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. ” iii.…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…P. Ltd. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in CIT v. Orissa Corporation P Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd [2001] 251 ITR 263 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Del-HC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Del-HC), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Green Infra Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd. [2017] 400 ITR 439 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Apeak Info Tec…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…irst Appellate Authority, Mumbai, in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,66,78,600/- made on account of share premium and consequent addition made under section 68 of the Act, ignoring the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195, CIT vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169/206 from Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 2. During hearing of this appeal, Shri Rajendra Kumar, learned DR, explained that the assessee received share capital/share premium from sixteen entities by inviting our attention to the finding recorded in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. 9.3. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: ITA Nos.289 to 293/Del/2015 23 “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…

Income Tax Officer 15(2)-1, Mumbai vs. Iraisaa Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1810/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1810/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-15(2)-1, Mumbai Room बिधम/ M/S. Iraisaa Developers Pvt. No.452 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. D2, Big Splash, Sector- Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci3061M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri N. Hemalatha (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of [He Cast & M Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Unsecured Loans Amounting To Rs,50,00,000/- Made Under Section Cit A Of The Income Tax Act, Without Appreciating The Findings Of The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri N. Hemalatha (DR)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…nsequentially replacing the cheque payment. The documents submitted by the assessee nowhere considered and discussed by the AO. The CIT(a) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195(SC) 2008. Taking into ITA NO.1810/M./2018 A.Y. 2009-10 account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is quite correct which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

…uineness of transaction - revenue cannot invoke Section 68 and is free to re-open individual assessments of the shareholders. Reliance is placed on the following (Copy of decisions is enclosed) a. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC); b. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 115 taxman 99 (SC); c. Commissioner of Income-tax-ll v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 19' taxmann.com 26 (Delhi); d. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. [2011] 198 taxman 247 (Delhi); e. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Dwarkadhish Investment (…