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.

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 226/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…n money which is an essential pre-requisite for making addition in such cases. I am convinced that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 and the jurisdictional High Court viz. the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 393 for the reason that the facts in such cases are entirely same, particularly, when no differentiation could be effectively demonstrated and brought on to the record by the A.O. The submissions of the AO…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 225/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…n money which is an essential pre-requisite for making addition in such cases. I am convinced that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 and the jurisdictional High Court viz. the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 393 for the reason that the facts in such cases are entirely same, particularly, when no differentiation could be effectively demonstrated and brought on to the record by the A.O. The submissions of the AO…

Bala Reddy Gopu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 455/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 14ASection 17(1)(iv)Section 192Section 194HSection 44A

…ansactions have been proved and the burden is shifted to the Assessing Officer. It was also claimed that the transactions were made through cheques and addition was made on assumptions and presumptions. The assessee relied on CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., 216 CTR 195. 13. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue at length with various case law and upheld the action of the AO by observing as under: “7.3 The submissions of the assessee have been. considered. In respect of other creditors, the Authorised Representative had furnished copies of IT returns along with computa…

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Art Housing P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 522/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.522/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-1(1)(1), M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. 534, Aayakar Bhawan, Block No. 302, Mehta Business बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Centre, Khaitan Chambers, Vs. 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahca 6007 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Dharan Gandhi & Shri Vishesh Sangoi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 26.01.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Directing The Deletion Of The Sum Brought To Tax By The 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. Ao As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Moneys Credited In The Books As Share Application Money Rs.45,00,000?"

For Appellant: Ms. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi &
Section 68

…d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reproduced the assessee’s submissions in 18 pages of his order. Thereafter, by one paragraph on page 19, he deleted the entire addition by observing as under: 3.1 I have gone through the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports, 216 CTR 195 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held a view that once that name and address and other details given to the Department, the Department is free to reopen the concerned individual assessment records and the share application money cannot be declared as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, so respectfully following the decisio…

Shree Laxmi Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5954/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

…nfrastructure (P) Ltd (supra) would 11 M/s Shree Laxmi Developers be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 9. The assessee has also relied upo the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court while deleting the addition made u/s 68 observed 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 department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but this amount of share appl…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sringeri Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Sing

Section 68

…and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court dated February 22, 2012 in the case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs.UOI (Writ Petition No. 397 fo 2011), wherein judgements in cases of M/s. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) (SC), CIT V/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) (333 ITP. 100) (Born) etc. relied upon by the assessee have been discussed and distinguished while holding that that amounts shown to have been received as share application money has be to be taxed as income of income of the asessee company from undisclosed sources in accordance with the provis…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ness of the share 7 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. applicant. Therefore, no addition could have been made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) " CIT Vs Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " CIT Vs Achal Investments Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211 (Del.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307…

M/S. Smit Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6922/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2005-06 Smit Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward- 9(1), E-78, 1St Floor, Lic Colony, New Delhi. Vs. Pashim Vihar, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…me W.P. (C) NO. 8067/2010 Page 15 Tax versus SFIL Stock Broking Limited, [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi) and Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, 2010 (329) ITR 110 9 (Delhi), in which CIT versus Lovely Exports (P) Limited, (2009) 216 CTR 195 (SC) has been applied and followed, are applicable. We may notice here that the respondent in their counter affidavit have stated that Swetu Stone Pvt. Ltd. is unidentifiable and, therefore, the aforesaid decisions should not be applied and the ratio of the decision dated 7th January, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7517/2010, AGR Investment Li…

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…learned AO may think fit, should have been made only in the hands of share applicant companies and not the receiver of the money (assessee company) as per the principles laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT.LTD {(2008) 216 CTR 195) wherein it was held that - “If the share application money is received by the assessee company even from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to AO, then the Department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company”. Hon‟ble…

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2485/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…learned AO may think fit, should have been made only in the hands of share applicant companies and not the receiver of the money (assessee company) as per the principles laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT.LTD {(2008) 216 CTR 195) wherein it was held that - “If the share application money is received by the assessee company even from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to AO, then the Department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company”. Hon‟ble…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…uspicions and treat the subscribed capital as the undisclosed income of the company”. (18) Further Your Honor's kind attention is also invited to the decision of their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd [(2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)] wherein the special leave petition filed by the Department against the order of the Delhi High Court has been dismissed with the following remarks :- “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…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…Here is also same position, as the assessee received amount from the 3-4 persons, which were deposited in bank through account payee cheque. 6.1 The above matter is covered by the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195(SC), wherein it has been held that “If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders, whose names are given to the AO, 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 assessee company” Further…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Juneja Nagpal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 331/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantita Nos.328 & 329/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2005-06 Vs. M/S. Junoon Capital Services Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, C.R. Building, Pvt. Ltd., 104-Mukand House, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi Pan : Aabcj1667L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.331/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Vs. M/S. Juneja Nagpal Room No. 413A, C.R. Building, Construction Pvt. Ltd., 203- I.P. Estate, New Delhi Mukand House, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi Pan : Aaabcj0067G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Vivek Agrawal, Ca Date Of Hearing 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 68

…is fact whether those documents were available with the Assessing Officer or filed for the first time before him, he relied on all the documents and following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited, (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) deleted the additions. 9. Before us, the Ld. Sr. DR produced the original assessment record, which was also shown to the Ld. counsel of the assessee. The Ld. counsel of the assessee also concurred with this fact that the documents relied upon by the Ld. CIT-(A) were not available before the Assessing Officer. This fact also gets confirmed fr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Junoon Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 329/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantita Nos.328 & 329/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2005-06 Vs. M/S. Junoon Capital Services Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, C.R. Building, Pvt. Ltd., 104-Mukand House, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi Pan : Aabcj1667L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.331/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Vs. M/S. Juneja Nagpal Room No. 413A, C.R. Building, Construction Pvt. Ltd., 203- I.P. Estate, New Delhi Mukand House, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi Pan : Aaabcj0067G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Vivek Agrawal, Ca Date Of Hearing 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 68

…is fact whether those documents were available with the Assessing Officer or filed for the first time before him, he relied on all the documents and following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited, (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) deleted the additions. 9. Before us, the Ld. Sr. DR produced the original assessment record, which was also shown to the Ld. counsel of the assessee. The Ld. counsel of the assessee also concurred with this fact that the documents relied upon by the Ld. CIT-(A) were not available before the Assessing Officer. This fact also gets confirmed fr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Junoon Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 328/DEL/2010[2000-01]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantita Nos.328 & 329/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2005-06 Vs. M/S. Junoon Capital Services Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, C.R. Building, Pvt. Ltd., 104-Mukand House, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi Pan : Aabcj1667L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.331/Del/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Vs. M/S. Juneja Nagpal Room No. 413A, C.R. Building, Construction Pvt. Ltd., 203- I.P. Estate, New Delhi Mukand House, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi Pan : Aaabcj0067G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Vivek Agrawal, Ca Date Of Hearing 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 68

…is fact whether those documents were available with the Assessing Officer or filed for the first time before him, he relied on all the documents and following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited, (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) deleted the additions. 9. Before us, the Ld. Sr. DR produced the original assessment record, which was also shown to the Ld. counsel of the assessee. The Ld. counsel of the assessee also concurred with this fact that the documents relied upon by the Ld. CIT-(A) were not available before the Assessing Officer. This fact also gets confirmed fr…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010, 2121, 2122 & 2123/Del/2012, 2706 /Del/2013 Surya Build well Private Limited V ACIT Co No 115 & 116/Del/2013 & CO No. 96, 97 & 98/Del/2014 A Y 2004-05 to 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2703 /Del/2010 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) ACIT, Surya Build well Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Central Circle-23, B-1, Udyog Nagar, Peera New Delhi Garhi Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 116/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 2703/Del/2010) (Ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Surya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010, 2121, 2122 & 2123/Del/2012, 2706 /Del/2013 Surya Build well Private Limited V ACIT Co No 115 & 116/Del/2013 & CO No. 96, 97 & 98/Del/2014 A Y 2004-05 to 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2703 /Del/2010 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) ACIT, Surya Build well Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Central Circle-23, B-1, Udyog Nagar, Peera New Delhi Garhi Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 116/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 2703/Del/2010) (Ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Surya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010, 2121, 2122 & 2123/Del/2012, 2706 /Del/2013 Surya Build well Private Limited V ACIT Co No 115 & 116/Del/2013 & CO No. 96, 97 & 98/Del/2014 A Y 2004-05 to 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2703 /Del/2010 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) ACIT, Surya Build well Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Central Circle-23, B-1, Udyog Nagar, Peera New Delhi Garhi Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 116/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 2703/Del/2010) (Ass…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…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…

M/S. Metro Decorative Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…t in reality all the creditors are only paper companies and the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions are not proved as all the three attributes required to be proved by the assessee as per the decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. (2008) 216 ITR 195 (SC), CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98. Holding so Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. Hence, the assessee is in appeal now before us. 3. It is the argument of the Ld. AR that the reasons recorded by the AO in this case cannot be said to be reasons to believe that any income of the assessee had escaped assessment,…