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 366,339 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 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.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

…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…

ACIT, Circle- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Akshay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2923/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Vs. M/S.Akshayinfrastructure Room No. 432, Pvt Ltd.102, 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Chsl, Aayakar Bhavan, Tilak Nagar, M.K. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai-400089 Pan/Gir No. : Aahca2331A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Ajaysingh&Yogeshjoijode.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Manoj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Cit(A) Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal. 1."On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs2,03,00,000/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Merely Relying On The Submissions Made By The A.R. Of The Assessee & On The Basis Of

For Appellant: Mr.AjaySingh&YogeshJoijode.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Manoj Kumar.DR

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

…other sources. 5.1.4 Therefore, AO made an addition of Rs2,03,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act1961 5.1.5 The Appellant has further relied upon the following case laws: a)Apex court judgement in case of Commissioner of Income Tax VsLovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 held 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 it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. b)Further reliance is place on ju…

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

…n before A.%. 20135 4 Special Leave Petition before A.%. 20135 4 the Supreme the Supreme Court came Court came to be dismissed on 11 January 2008. In CIT v. to be dismissed on 11 January 2008. In CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008) 6 DTR 308 (SC) while [2008) 6 DTR 308 (SC) while dismissing the Special Leave Petition the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition the Supreme Court observed that if the share application money was received observed that if the share application money was received observed that if the share…

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai vs. Mesers Steelco Ispat Private Limited, Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 88/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ness of these persons is established. Transactions were also genuine as these were done through banking channels. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has placed his reliance in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 and judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court i.e. High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of ACIT Vs. Venkeshwar Ispat (P) Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 393 wherein similar issues were discussed. It was submitted by the Ld. CIT-DR that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the A.O tre…

Sangita Developers Pvt.Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(4)., Kolkata

ITA 175/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 68

…r is not able to satisfactorily prove the source of its investment, addition can be made in the hands of assessee company and not its shareholder. The proviso thus cleared the confusion created by an earlier decision of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 in which relief was given only to public issue of shares. The decision was being erringly quoted by assesses to evade their onus of proving "source of source" even in case of private placement of shares. Even prior to this amendment, the onus was always on the assessee to prove the identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the entities in wh…

Mystuc Ekectribucs Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 5867/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…me, not appreciating that the appellant being a widely held public limited company its onus under the provisions of section 68 of the Act was fully discharged having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [216 CTR 195(SC)] and Stellar Investment Ltd. [(2011) 115 Taxman 99 (SC)], and h. not appreciating that neither any incriminating material was found in the course of search action nor any adverse inferences could be drawn merely on the basis of statements of the persons referred to and relied upon by him without bringing any corroborative material in support…

Mukta Agriculture Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(CC)-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes respectively and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5778/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 5778/Mum/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 2. ITA No. 866/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2015-16) Mukta Agriculture Ltd. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J. P. Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 058 PAN: AAGCP1709E ....... Appellant Vs. DCIT (CC) 4 (3) R. No. 1921, 19th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 ..... Respondent 3. ITA No. 6567/Mum/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 4. ITA No. 1008/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2015-16) DCIT (CC) 4 (3) R. No. 1921, 19th floor, Air India Building, Nari…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ACIT VS. Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd,in ITANO.157/JP/2017] JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS COVERING THE GROUNDS ABOVE 1. The Appellant has relied upon plethora of judgments', including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). In the case laws relied upon by the Appellant, the issues has been dealt as under:- "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are givento the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regard…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

DCIT, CC- 28, New Delhi vs. Saarthak Vanijya India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 3822/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaआ.अ.संसंसंसं/.I.T.A No.3822/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

Section 148Section 68

…h Court in Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd., ITA No.369/2015 and SLP against the same has been dismissed by Supreme Court, decision of Flon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 320 (2014) and CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. 216 CTR 195, requested that there is no merit to consider this investment as unexplained. 8.2 In the other hand AO has just mentioned that these investor companies creditworthiness to advance such huge amount, looking to the smallness of the income disclosed by them. No cogent reasoning or any evidence was relied upon. Here it is pertinent to mention that a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. M/S R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 144/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…Ltd. Without finding any fault in the documents no adverse finding can be made by the AO. It is further observed that the AO has failed to take note of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd, reported, in 216 CTR 195 and the jurisdictional High Court viz. Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT Vs Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd reported in 319 ITR 393 nor it is the case of the AO that the facts in said cases are entirely different from the facts in the instant case. Hence no such differentiation could be effectively demonstrated and brought on the record by t…

ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4380/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Ward- 16 (1) Vs C-16, 101 First Floor, New Delhi Gurunanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092 Pan No.Aahcm1300K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)Section 68

…ent on to delete the impugned additions. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the findings of the CIT(A). It appears that the CIT(A) has been carried away with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 without realizing the later judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of NR Portfolio Private Limited 2 ITR –OL – 68 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble supreme Court. Further we find that the assessee has simply filed documents but has not given any explanation to the adverse observations in respect of the bank statements. Even…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Khyathi Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd

In the result, we pass the following:

ITA/85/2020HC Karnataka04 Jul 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 68

…tion has been made by the Revenue. 12. In view of the submission made by Shri Sanmathi, with regard to Gagandeep Infrastructure (supra), we have perused the Order of the Apex Court in Lovely Exports Private Ltd.7, wherein it is held as follows: 7 2008 216 CTR 195 (SC) - 10 - NC: 2023:KHC:22962-DB ITA No.85 of 2020 "2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 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,…

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

ITA 652/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 652/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), M/s. Outcome Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 63, Radha Bazar Street Kolkata -700001 [PAN : AABCO6168M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue by : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 03/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. M…

M/S Sasi Enterprises, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle II(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 844/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…rged the onus of proving the identity of the lender, the capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee was not expected to prove the source of source as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (216 CTR 195) and in other case laws. During appellate proceedings, remand report was sought from Ld. AO wherein Ld. AO stated that the assessee did not discharge the duties to prove the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Considering the same, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4…

M/S Sasi Enterprises, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle II(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 843/CHNY/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Albatross Share Registry Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3788/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…planation of the appellant satisfactory. M/s. Albatross Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3788/Mum./2019 C.O. no.143/Mum./2021 4.4.4 I find that the facts of this case are covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP of the Revenue observed as under: "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 wi…

M/S Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 605/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vill.- Hatgobindapur Vs 1(2), Kolkata Dist.- Burdwan Pincode - 713407 [Pan : Aaeck1877C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Burdwan (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 25/01/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A) On 25.01.2019 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.207,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also Proved The Identity, Creditworthiness Of The Share Application And

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

…actions, thus his action is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that the issue relating to the raising of share capital is concluded in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company. 5. For that on the facts of the case, the charging interest u/s. 234B amounting to Rs. 24,17,796/- which is mechanically wrong and illegal. 6. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at o…

Dy, CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Epc Offshore Subsea Projects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3834/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath DasFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…its as the identity of the investor was disclosed by the Assessee and accepted by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, reliance was placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Export Private Limited (2008) 216 CTR 195. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none was present for 6. the Appellant. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. Admittedly the shares were issued by the Assessee to its holding company at a premium. The financial statements of…