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 366,339 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.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Himachal Fibres Ltd

ITA/263/2018HC Delhi28 Feb 2018

Bench: Him, The Ao Concluded That The Identity Of The Shareholders & The Genuineness Of The Transaction Had Not Been Established & Accordingly Brought To Tax The Said Amount. The Cit(A), Who Sought A Remand Report, Noted That The Ao Had Recorded In The Course Of His Order That The Assessee Was A

Section 68

…ts specially unchallenged shareholder affidavits and in ITA No.263/2018 Page 2 of 5 view of lack of enquiry by the AO during assessment and remand proceedings, is squarely covered by Hon'ble Apex court decision in case of Lovely exports 216 CTR 195 wherein it is held that: "2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason 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…

ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinaylene Textile Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 3240/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3240/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito-14(3)(2), M/S. Vinaylene Textile Industries 458, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Kuntal Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Vs. Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1653 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Aarjoo Goradia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,00,000/- On A/C Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. The Companies From Which The Assessee Has Accepted Shares Application Money Of Rs.70,00,000/- Were Controlled & 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Vinaylene Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Operated By Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, Who Admitted In His Statement Recorded During The Course Of Search & Seizure Action That The Concerns/Companies Controlled By Him Were Only Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries To Various Parties Of Which The Assessee Is Also One Of The Beneficiaries. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Vary, Omit Or Substitute The Aforesaid Ground Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarjoo GoradiaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram &
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 68

…f share application money received from the investors through banking channels cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s.68 of our above client. Reliance is made on the ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Lovely Exports P.Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4. Under the circumstances we request you not to make addition u/s 68 of the Act for the share application money received from the above investors". 7 ITO vs. M/s. Vinaylene Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. 10. Assessee's above submission has been carefully considered but the same is not acceptable as the statement recorded consequent to actio…

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sankalp Corporate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 68

…rities Ltd vs. CIT 166Taxmann7(All-HC) [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court] 10. Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169/20 17 dated 14/03/20 17 (Del-HC) 11. CIT vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd 88 CCH 65 (All-HC) 12. CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd 216 ITR 195 (SC) 13. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd 251 ITR 263 (SC) 14. CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA 1613 of 2014 (Bom-HC) 15. CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom-HC) 16. Mod Creations Pvt Ltd vs. ITO 354ITR282(Del-HC) 17. CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd 299ITR268(Del-HC) 18. CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330IT…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/181/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/179/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/176/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/175/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/180/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/174/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/178/2018HC Delhi13 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…$~55,59,60,62-65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2018 & CM. APPL.5526/2018 ITA 175/2018 & CM. APPL.5605/2018 ITA 176/2018 & CM. APPL.5606/2018 ITA 178/2018 ITA 179/2018 & CM. APPL.5607/2018 ITA 180/2018 & CM. APPL.5608/2018 ITA 181/2018 & CM. APPL.5609/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. versus DWARKA PRASAD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Spartacus Farmsp.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3073/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3073/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The I.T.O-8(3)(2), M/S. Spartacus Farms Pvt. Ltd. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, 11-A, Gr. Floor, बनाम/ M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6632 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Ms. Trupti Y. Katale सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar &
Section 68

…ard remittance certificate, allotment of shares and name and address of the person including her PAN from whom the said credits have been received. That the assessee also relied on various judicial pronouncements namely CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (SC) (216 CTR 195), CIT vs. M/s. Stellar Investments Company Ltd. (251 ITR 263) (SC), CIT v/s P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) and also various other rulings of various High Courts and the Apex Court and stated that an analysis of the various judgement goes to show that assessee's burden is restricted to establish the existence of the share holders and not…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Joginer Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member M/s. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near ITC Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 PAN – AABCJ8295L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by: Shri Aarju Goradia Date of Hearing: 28.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the…

ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tikmani Metal (P) Ltd. (Now Vsp Steel (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 741/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 741/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Vsp Steel (P) Ltd. (Formerly Tikmani Metal (P) Ltd.) [Pan: Aacct 2881 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.H. Seena, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…itor/investor is found to be possessing undisclosed income and making investment out of it, then, that income has to be taxed in the hands of the investors/creditors. This ratio has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company. The ITAT, Kolkata Bench, following the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. has adjudicated at ITA No. 1985/Kol/2010 in the case of ITO vs Indian Forms Centre (P) Ltd. has held - “We observe that the transactions are duly…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 1 vs. M/S Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd

ITA/130/2018HC Delhi06 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 68

…tablished and prima facie their credibility too was revealed, burden of proving that the transactions were not genuine lay upon the Revenue. After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and other judgments of this Court, the CIT(A) directed that the amounts brought to tax under Section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted. The ITAT by its impugned order confirmed the CIT(A)’s conclusions. 3. The Revenue in its appeal urges that the lower appellate authorities fell into error in not placing much emphasis on the report…

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

…the assessee discharges its initial onus of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then the AO is precluded from going to question the source in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (2008) 216 ITR 195 wherein it was held that the names and address of the persons from whom the loan were taken have been furnished to the AO, then the AO is free to reopen the individual assessment in accordance with law but the additions cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In so far as cessation of liability, the CIT(A) has de…

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

…the assessee discharges its initial onus of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then the AO is precluded from going to question the source in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (2008) 216 ITR 195 wherein it was held that the names and address of the persons from whom the loan were taken have been furnished to the AO, then the AO is free to reopen the individual assessment in accordance with law but the additions cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In so far as cessation of liability, the CIT(A) has de…

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

…the assessee discharges its initial onus of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then the AO is precluded from going to question the source in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (2008) 216 ITR 195 wherein it was held that the names and address of the persons from whom the loan were taken have been furnished to the AO, then the AO is free to reopen the individual assessment in accordance with law but the additions cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In so far as cessation of liability, the CIT(A) has de…

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

…the assessee discharges its initial onus of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then the AO is precluded from going to question the source in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (2008) 216 ITR 195 wherein it was held that the names and address of the persons from whom the loan were taken have been furnished to the AO, then the AO is free to reopen the individual assessment in accordance with law but the additions cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In so far as cessation of liability, the CIT(A) has de…

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

…the assessee discharges its initial onus of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then the AO is precluded from going to question the source in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (2008) 216 ITR 195 wherein it was held that the names and address of the persons from whom the loan were taken have been furnished to the AO, then the AO is free to reopen the individual assessment in accordance with law but the additions cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In so far as cessation of liability, the CIT(A) has de…

Nemchand Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6423/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

…the assessee discharges its initial onus of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then the AO is precluded from going to question the source in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (2008) 216 ITR 195 wherein it was held that the names and address of the persons from whom the loan were taken have been furnished to the AO, then the AO is free to reopen the individual assessment in accordance with law but the additions cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In so far as cessation of liability, the CIT(A) has de…