What is Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT authority for?

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

How many judgments cite Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT?

339 judgments on BharatTax cite Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 133(6).

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…er of the lender but wrongful source cannot be held to be income of lender Assessee in terms of presumptive law u/s 68 of the Act. I am supported in my view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau). Even otherwise, the requirement of proving source of source in respect of unsecured loan transactions has been brought in the ambit of Section 68 w.e.f Assessment Year 2023-2024 and such amendment made in section 68 cannot be read to be retrospective in force. 6.2.8. The AO has further relied upon a list of “Identified Shell Companies List…

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCN2550L Appearances: Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR. Department represented by : Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 16-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13-January-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separat…

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCN2550L Appearances: Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR. Department represented by : Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 16-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13-January-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separat…

NIDHI RANI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…ITA No.3323/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani vs ITO 1361, Sector-25, Part-II Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat PAN-ARRPR9400P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, CA Respondent by Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S OM TRILOK REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 4048/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: 17.09.2025

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…and sufficient bank balances in the bank statement of the lenders which clearly prove the creditworthiness of the said lenders. Interest is paid and TDS has been deducted by the appellant on such loans. 8.11 Further, in the case of Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254] [Gau), the Hon'ble High Court had held that "A harmonious construction of section 106 of the Evidence Act and section 68 of the Income-tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessment establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the ass…

IMRAN AHMAD,MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3490/DEL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 139Section 147Section 148

…axmann.com 195 (SC)/[2017] 250 Taxman 22 (SC), 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT wherein it was held that entire undisclosed income generated out of bogus transactions, deserves to be added to total income. 1. Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati)/[2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 635 (Gauhati) wherein it was held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. "It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanc…

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…ee to make the additions. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan-Di-hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938, Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254, PCIT Vs. Sreeleathers (2022) 448 ITR 332. 3.4. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is bad in law even on the ground of violation of natural justice. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO collected the material and statement behind back of the assessee which were used against him in making addition but no opportunity…