How many judgments cite Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT?

340 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 254High Court2003#227 most cited

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.

340

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credit · onus of proof · burden of proof · identity of creditors · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditors · transaction by cheque · share application money · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

136 Taxmann 213

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 106 creditworthiness of the creditor source of source onus of proof share capital and share premium shell company addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction section 127 admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…hetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); and Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 289 (Cal) support the view that Revenue authorities are entitled to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil in order to ascertain the truth. They are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the realities of the transactions show…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5638/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri V.C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of v. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1st Floor, Room No. 217, 2nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 PAN: AABPJ 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.C. Shah Department by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra Date of Hearing : 14.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.O. – 13(3)(3) v. M/s. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AADCV 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra Date of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Rev…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Aangan Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aabce 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department By : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh ChothaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income v. M/s. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, LBS Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 PAN: AABCE 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department by : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra Date of Hearing : 07.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by…

Smt. Parulben Rajubhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1308/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…In these circumstances, it was not incumbent upon the AO to make cross verification necessarily with the lender in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builder 256 ITR 36 (Guj); Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guwahati) and long line of other judicial precedents which holds that no obligation is cast upon the assessee to prove the ‘source of source’ of funds received by the lender per se prior to its lending to the assessee. The action of the AO in not making cross inquiry is thus not fatal per se to hold the order as erroneous. The learned AR further…

Bidit Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

ITA 579/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Mukherjee, Addl. CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Bidit Financial Management Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Ltd. C/o, D.J. Shah & Co. Kalyan Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020. 700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCB 3619 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Saurabh Mukherjee, Addl. CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 18/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/03/2019 आदेश / O…

Shri Hardik Satish Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3185/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.3185/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Hardik Satish Sharma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 402, Samarth Avenue, Ward – 9(2), 48, Sardar Patel Nagar, Ahmedabad. Opp: Nest Hotel, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009 [PAN No. AQBPS 7578 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12/12/2018 Date of Pronouncement 07/03/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) 1 vs. Nra Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Through Director

C.A. No.-002463-002463 - 2019Supreme Court05 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 148Section 68

…pplication money depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each other, or mode by which parties approached each other, whether the transaction is entered into through 12 [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) 13 CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd.[2014] 42 taxmann.com 339/222 Taxman 157 (Mag.) (Delhi) 22 written documentation to protect investment, whether the investor was an angel investor, the quantum of money invested, credit-worthiness of the recipient, object and purpose for which payment/investment was made, etc. The incorporation…

Gaurav Garg, Baraut vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 221/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv., Sh. Sobhit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jain, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 153ASection 44ASection 68Section 69A

…High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal cited as CIT vs. Meghjibhai Popatbhai Virani (2013) (ii) Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K.Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (iv) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 taxman 213. 13. We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by AO and the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR for the assessee are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order 8 ITA No.221/Del./2015 passed by…

M/S Samco Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2372/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 vs ACIT Samco Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Rithani, Delhi Road, Circle-2, Bhaisali Ground, Meerut. Meerut. AABCS9387E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2019 ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-Meerut dated 30/03/2016 for AY 2011-12, challenging the addition of…

R.D. Foundation, Ghaziabad vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 7877/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SHFor Respondent: SH. SUNRENDER PAL, SR. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 R.D. FOUNDATION, VS. ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION) C/O RRA TAXINDIA, GHAZIABAD D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION CGO COMPLEX-I, PART-I, NEW DELHI – 49 HAPUR ROAD, (PAN: AABTR3819D) GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SH. SHUBHAM SOBIT, ADV. Department by : SH. SUNRENDER PAL, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.10.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relating…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

…ing Officer as well as before him and held that the assessee has provided confirmations from all the parties as well as various evidences to establish the genuineness of the transaction, assessee has also relied upon the judgment of Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) wherein it has held that it is a certain law that the assessee is to prove the genuineness of transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. It is not the business of assessee to find out the source of money of creditors.…

ITO, WD-1(1), Siliguri vs. M/S Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

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

…or a borrower to contend, that even the "creditworthiness" of the lender stands proved to the extent of credits appearing in his Bank Account and he should be held to be successful in this contention." 5.6. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking 5.6. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…well supported by the following judicial pronouncements – • S. Hastimal V. CIT 49 ITR 273 (Mad) • Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT Vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 • Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guj) • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Nevertheless taking abundant precaution, during appellate proceedings, learned AR of the assessee was asked to submit the evidences to explain the "source of source" out of which impugned loans was granted to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed the explanation vide letter dated 12.04.20…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4014/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Charyshri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH ’E’: NEW DELHI BENCH : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND AND AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4014/Del/2011 IT…

Pooja Tyre Marketing, Himatnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

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

ITA 253/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.253/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pooja Tyre Marketing, Income Tax Officer, Aakar Complex, S.K Ward 3, Vs. Himatnagar. Opp. Vyapar Bhawan, Himatnagar-383 001. Pan: Aabfa9200G

For Respondent: Shri

Section 133(6)Section 68

…of cash credit in its hands. As such the assessee is not liable to explain the source of cash in the hands of the lenders. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Namichand Kothari reported in 264 ITR 254 wherein it was held as under: “While section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act limits the onus of the assessee to extent to his proving the source from where he has received the cash credit, section 68 gives ample freedom to the Assessing Officer to make inquiry not only into the source(s) of the creditor, but also of his (creditor’s) sub-creditors…

ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Delight Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1755/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1755/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1755/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s Delight Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 6th Floor, 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. Room No.310, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCD 2019 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Rabin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 27/11/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/12/2018 आदे…

Bhutoria Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(4), Kolkata

ITA 2024/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 2024/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 68

…1 Bhutoria Electricals Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A. No. 2024/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhutoria Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-7(4), Kolkata (PAN: AABCB1494M) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2018 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T…

ITO, WD-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tritium Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 68

…or a borrower to contend, that even the "creditworthiness" of the lender stands proved to the extent of credits appearing in his Bank Account and he should be held to be successful in this contention." 5.6. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of 9 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Tritium Commodities onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking 5.6. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has…