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

Issues it is cited on

section 106creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceonus of proofshare capital and share premiumshell companyaddition under section 68addition u/s 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 127admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…ITR 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 sacrosanct. In the present appeal, we note that the assessee has duly proved the identity of the party from where loan was taken, therefore, identity is not in 22 Anil Chhaganlal Jain Anil Chhaganlal Jain(HUF) dispute, since, the loan was taken through banking channel, and therefore, its g…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…ITR 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 sacrosanct. In the present appeal, we note that the assessee has duly proved the identity of the party from where loan was taken, therefore, identity is not in 22 Anil Chhaganlal Jain Anil Chhaganlal Jain(HUF) dispute, since, the loan was taken through banking channel, and therefore, its g…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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 8 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…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1070/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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 8 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…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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 8 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…

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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 8 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…

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ram Textiles, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

Section 133(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT-21(3), M/s Ram Textiles, 221, 02nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. AAKFR4679N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Shashank Dundu राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Purushottam Kumar-DR 21/03/20…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…ITR 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 sacrosanct. In the present appeal, the assessee neither fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act nor produced necessary evidence for its claim. 2.10. 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…

Shiv Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1037/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. B.L. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1037/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2011-12 SHIV KUMAR AGGARWAL, ITO, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI 2826/18, BHAGWATI MARKET, VS. GALI PEEPAL MAHADEV, HAUZ QAZI, DELHI - 110006 (PAN: ABCPA2429G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. B.L. Gupta, Adv. Department by : Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR ORDER Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances…

Shri Sachin Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4577/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, CA & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4577/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2013-14 SACHIN KAPOOR, ITO, WARD 32(5), NEW DELHI C/O RRA TAXINDIA, VS. D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI (PAN: AJUPK5509P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, CA & Sh. Yashu Goel, CA Department by : Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR ORDER Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 16.3.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- “1. That having regard to the facts and ci…

DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citygold Education Research P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for A

ITA 4750/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Rajat MittalFor Respondent: Shri. Viral Doshi
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…IT(A) has jurisdiction to allow the additional evidence during appellate proceedings under rule 46(A) of the Income Tax Rules. Moreover, the case of the assessee is covered by the judgment of Guwhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2014) 264 ITR 254 in which it has been held that it is not the business of the assessee to find out whether the source or sources from which the creditor had agreed to advance the amounts were genuine or not. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in question in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Ho…

Smt. Preeti Garg, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2184/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 SMT. PREETI GARG, VS. ITO, WARD-2, PROP.: M/S GAYTRI PLYWOOD, HARIDWAR 1, KARSHANI ASHRAM, PHOOPATWALA, HARIDWAR – 249401 UTTARAKHAND (PAN: ADFPG2291R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Pradeep Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 29.01.2015 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun relevant to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as un…

Kalsha Builders P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…urnish the assessee with copies of statement and disclose material, these were denied to him. In this view of the matter we are inclined to allow the appeal on this very issue." 38. Now coming to the decision relied on by AO in the case of Namichand Kothari – 264 ITR 254, Guwahati High Court, we found that the aforesaid decision is in favour of the assessee. The AO has quoted from the following para which itself stands in favour of the assessee: 20 ITA No.7643-2013 & 1808-2015 M/s. Kalsha Builders Pvt . Ltd., "22. Mr. Bhuyan's contention that a payment made by cheque cannot be treated as sacrosanct and his relia…

Kalsha Builders P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…urnish the assessee with copies of statement and disclose material, these were denied to him. In this view of the matter we are inclined to allow the appeal on this very issue." 38. Now coming to the decision relied on by AO in the case of Namichand Kothari – 264 ITR 254, Guwahati High Court, we found that the aforesaid decision is in favour of the assessee. The AO has quoted from the following para which itself stands in favour of the assessee: 20 ITA No.7643-2013 & 1808-2015 M/s. Kalsha Builders Pvt . Ltd., "22. Mr. Bhuyan's contention that a payment made by cheque cannot be treated as sacrosanct and his relia…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…under these circumstances then the burden got shifted to assessee to prove vide cogent evidences that the apparent is real and is not merely smoke screen to introduce assessees’ own money by this apparent loan transaction. k) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau. HC)- In this case also it was held that the assessee is not required to prove source of source and once primary onus is discharged by the assessee as to establishing identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the loan transaction, then it is for Revenue to disprove the same. While in the instant case before us support t…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…under these circumstances then the burden got shifted to assessee to prove vide cogent evidences that the apparent is real and is not merely smoke screen to introduce assessees’ own money by this apparent loan transaction. k) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau. HC)- In this case also it was held that the assessee is not required to prove source of source and once primary onus is discharged by the assessee as to establishing identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the loan transaction, then it is for Revenue to disprove the same. While in the instant case before us support t…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Pearls & Investments Ltd. (ITA No. 429/2003 dated 21.12.2015) and held as under:- "11. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied on tne decision of the Gauhati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) and urged that it was incumbent on the Assessee to prove the creditworthiness of TL which in turn hinged upon the genuineness, identity and credit worthiness of TCL. Mr. Singh submitted that TlL having failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of TCL, the burden shifted to the Assessee to do so. 12. The Court has examined th…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…m Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) b) CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. 177 Taxman 331 (Del.) c) CIT vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) d) ITA No. 1583/Del/2011 AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case of DCIT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. 5 i) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT ii) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO e) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. B…

M/S India Finance Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - VIII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 678/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…aced reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- Diagonostics vs CIT & Anr reported in (2011) 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Addl CIT vs Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd reported in (1985) 154 ITR 244 (Pat) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & Anr reported in (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) ITO vs Sri Kalin Dutta in ITA NO. 1055/Kol/2013 dated 10.6.2016 (Kolkata Tribunal) DCIT vs Sunita Khemka in ITA Nos. 714 to 718 /Kol/2011 dated 28.10.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) We find that in all the aforesaid decisions, it was only held that once the assessee had disclosed the identity of the parties and payments were made by account payee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Inderpal Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

…06) 282 ITR 236 (All) , (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 394 (Bom) (c) Commissioner of income Tax *'s. Micro Melt (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 70 (Guj.) (d) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 21.5 In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, legal provision and case laws cited and discussed in this order, I hold that addition of unsecured loans on ad hoc basis was not justified. Considering the facts of the case and the fact that the loans have been repaid in subsequent years and in view of the judicial pronouncements c…