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

DCIT, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1762/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri A.L.Saini, AM] I.TA No. 1762/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Cir-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt. Ltd Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 04.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26.10.2018 For the Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR For the Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhewewala, FCA, ld.AR ORDER PER SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) , 4, Kolkata dated 20-05-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133ASection 68

…been given by some third party without permitting cross examination of them to rebut the Dept. conclusions. It is further submitted that the assessee is not to prove the sources of the source as held by the following Courts, (1)Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh.) (2)Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (3) CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) In the case of NEMI CHAND KOTHARI v. C.LT. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) it was held by the Gauhati High Court as under: "A person may have funds from any source and an assessee, on such information received, may take a loan fro…

Manish Maheshwari, Gwalior vs. JCIT Range-2, Gwalior

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

…re Shrivastava has been establish and the creditor has confirmed the loan, addition was not justify. Reliance is placed on following cases: DCIT V/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujrat) CIT V/s HeeralalChaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Rajasthan) NemichandKothar V/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gawhati)" 6. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned order. 7. Heard. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has filed the income tax return and bank statement before the CIT(A) in the form 6 of additional evidence which was not admitted, stating that none of the conditions in Rule 46 was fulfilled by the appellant. Although the ld. CIT(A…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…of file number of creditor will not 9 M/s R & Business Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. In the present appeal, the assessee has not discharged the onus cast upon it as provided under section 68 of the Act as the necessary details called by the learned Assessing Officer were not filed. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…financial statements and proved the source of the cash credits. He submitted that in the following cases, it has been held that the source of sources need not be proved by the assessee:- 5 Chandraprakash Paharia  Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT and Ors. (2003) 264 ITR 254  CIT Vs. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 10. The Ld A.R further submitted that identical additions relating to loans taken from Bhanwarlal Jain group of companies have been deleted by the co- ordinate benches of Tribunal in the following cases:-  ACIT Vs. Shri Vashu Bhagnani (ITA No. 5648/Mum/2016)  Jitendra Kitawat Vs. ITO (ITA N…

ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1768/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.D. Shah, AR

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

…r 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…

M/S Anjani Associates, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

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

ITA 27/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 68

…e has discharged that initial onus. The assessee is not required thereafter to prove the genuineness of the transactions as between its creditors and that of the creditors' source of income, i.e., the sub-creditors [See Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 254 and judgment of this court in ITA No. 1158/2007 Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer decided on 29.08.2007]. 8. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority. The Tribunal appears to have been satisfied with the quality of the evidence placed before it. We find no perversity in the findings, notwithstanding the stray sentence in its o…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6099/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT(CC)-1(3) M/s. Jainam Investments Vs. Room No. 905 11-A/5th Floor, Rockside Old CGO Building Appartment, Walkeshwar Annexe, M.K.Road Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAHFJ 1230A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari Department by Shri Abhijit Patankar Date of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.8.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) : The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28.7.2016 pa…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilip Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7079/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Virendar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya

Section 132

…9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Samtelcolor Ltd. 64 DTR 46; and 13) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxmann 213 18. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under: 6.3.24 Hence, it is to be inferred that in a case where the assesse has supplied all possible information to the Assessing Officer to explain the credit transaction, he has satisfactorily discharged the burden cast on him and it would be for the revenue to prove that the t…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ntion of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained 48 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. In the present appeal, the assessee duly fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act and produced necessary evidence for its claim. 3.5. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6123/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6122 & 6123/DEL/2014 A.Yrs. : 2007-08 & 2008-09 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-22, SH. SUMIT MITTAL, NEW DELHI VS. C-691, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, ROOM NO. 317, ARA CENTRE, NEW DELHI JHANDEWALAN EXTN., (PAN: ADDPM5322P) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Chadha, CA & Sh. Ankit Jain, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Revenue has filed these appeals against the separate impugned orders bo…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6122/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Yrv International, Mumbai

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

ITA 1414/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ness of the transaction and (iii) genuineness of transactions. (a) CIT Vs. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014)(361 ITR 481)(Gau) (b) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P Ltd (159 ITR 78)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Varinderrawley (2014)(366 ITR 232)(P & H) (d) Namichand Kothari Vs. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3 M/s. YRV International (e) CIT Vs. Smt. Sushiladevi Khdaria (2009)(319 ITR ….) (f) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd (2012)(51 SOT 234) 5. The Ld CIT(A) also took support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rushabh Enterprises vs. ACIT (W.P No.167 of 2015), wherein the Hon’ble High Court had dismissed the reop…

The ITO, Ward - 3(2)(2), Surat vs. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 585/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: 2. Ground No. 1 to 4 states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

…Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC)/ 25 Taxman 80(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR 444 (MP): [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP), Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254/ 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati), CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331(Raj.) in support of his contentions. In view of these facts and circumstances, the CIT (A) held that as per ITO 3(2)(2) Surat v. Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhadani /I.T.A. No.585 & CO-63/Ahd/2016/A.Y.:11-12 Page 5 of 19 ratio laid…

Venu Myneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya, DR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…b) Tolaram Daga Vs CIT (1966) [59 ITR 632] (Assam.); c) CIT Vs Daulat Ram Ramatmull, (1973) [87 ITR 349] (SC); d) Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (1976) [103, ITR 344] (Pat); e) Rohini Builders (2002) [256 ITR 360] (Guj); f) Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT (2003) [264 ITR 254]; g) CIT Vs HS Builders Pvt Ltd (2012) [254 CTR (Raj) 542]; 3. Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to submit a remand report on the written submissions filed by assessee. With regard to the deposits made on 25-11-2009 and 29-11-2009 in Indian Bank which are claimed to be gifts given by assessee's father, AO stated that letter dt. 16-03-2013 filed during t…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

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

…held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not 10 Shreedham Builders suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. In the present appeal, the assessee duly fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act and produced necessary evidence for its claim. 2.6. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488,…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always 25 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 sacrosanct. In the present appeal, we find that the assessee duly furnished the details of loan before the learned Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A). The loan was…

ITO, WD-6(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Wiz Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1162/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1162/Kol/2015 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Wd-6(4), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAACW8273E) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 03.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.06.2018 For the Appellant Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by the Revenue is…

JCIT (OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kalamkari Designs (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1310/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1310/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Kalamkari Designs Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabck 2117 N ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No. 1310/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 JCIT(OSD), Circle-11(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Kalamkari Designs Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AABCK 2117 N ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Damle, FCA Date of Hearing : 16.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11 .05.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This is an appeal of the Revenue directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…inder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 and other three appeals ix) Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) x) CIT V/s M/s Ashish International in ITA 4299/Mum/2009 7.…