Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vardan Fashion, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…(2006) 282 ITR 236 (All) (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 394 (Bom) (c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Micro Melt (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 70 (Guj.) (d) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 21.7 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, legal provisions and the case laws cited and discussed in this order. I find that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 was on presumption and surmises with vague and general observations. All the transactions were routed through banking channels.…

Mr. Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

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)

…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…

Mr. Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

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)

…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…

M/S Vardaan Fashion, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…(2006) 282 ITR 236 (All) (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 394 (Bom) (c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Micro Melt (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 70 (Guj.) (d) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 21.7 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, legal provisions and the case laws cited and discussed in this order. I find that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 was on presumption and surmises with vague and general observations. All the transactions were routed through banking channels.…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

…(P) Ltd. 154 ITR 244(Pat.) 23 2. CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349/350 (SC) 3. CIT VS. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 4. Sona E1ec. Co. vs. (IT 152 ITR 507/508 (Delhi) 5. Jalan Timbers vs. (IT 223 ITR 11116 (Gau.) 6. Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) 5.16 Assessing Officer has made certain adverse observations in the assessment order which have been met by the appellant in its written submissions. I have considered the adverse observations made by AO and reply of the appellant and I am satisfied that the observations of the AO do not carry any weight in the face of overwhelming e…

M/S. Sheela Foadm (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAACS0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 17/08/1012 o…

M/S. Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishifazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 13, Ismail Nagar, Meerut, Ward-1(2), Vs. Pan:Aaacf7364F Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent)

…31 of the Act, an affidavit confirming the advance of loan were submitted by all ladies and two gentlemen appeared personally. All of them have confirmedtheir loan before the AO. He relied on 3 decisions reported in 147 Taxman 18 of jurisdictional High Court, 264 ITR 254 of Gauhati High Court, 356 ITR 316 of Gujrat High Court. He further submitted that the issue is Page 8 of 15 now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mark Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. 373 ITR 115. He submitted that merely about the deposit of cash in the bank account of the lend…

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

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

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

…e following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj) (ii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del) (iii) Mod Creation (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (x) Dwarikadhish Sugar Industries vs. ITO 149 TTJ 401 (TM) In view of the above submissions, the ld. AR pleaded that the order of the ld.…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Shiv Dooti Pearls of Inves

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

…genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor were present in the case. 11. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied on the 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 TIL which in turn hinged upon the genuineness, identity and credit worthiness of TCL. Mr. Singh submitted that TIL having failed to ITA No. 429/2003 Page 6 of 9 establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of TCL, the burden shifted t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sonali Punj, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

…urt in the case of Tola Ram Oaga 59 ITR 632 held that the assessee cannot be attributed the knowledge of source of the amount u/s 106 of the Evidence Act merely because he happens to be the husband of the depositor. Similarly in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau), it was held that it was not the burden of the assessee to show the source of his creditor or to prove the creditworthiness of the source of the sub-creditor. When the assessee had established the identity of the creditors and the amounts had been received by him by way of cheques, the said amount cannot be said to be the income from undisc…

Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed

…ITA 1158-2007 Page 1 of 18 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2011 + ITA No. 1158/2007 MOD CREATIONS PVT. LTD. ...... APPELLANT Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... RESPONDENT Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate CORAM :- HON‟BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see…