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 367,181 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Surat vs. Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 391/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…ackaging (P.) Ltd. 42 Taxmann.Com 473 (Guj), (v) ITO vs. Shanti Enterprise 71 taxmann.com 275 (Guj), (vi) CIT vs. Ranachhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj), (vii) ITA No.391 & 312/SRT/2023/AY.16-17 Bharatbhai K Kakadiya Nemi Chand KothARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guj) and (viii) CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 221 CTR 511 (Del). The Ld. AR further submitted that assessee is not required to prove the source of the source as the amendment in this regard was brought in the Statute by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2023. He also submitted that assessee has repaid loan of Rs.2,01,00,000…

Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat vs. Assistant Registrar, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 312/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…ackaging (P.) Ltd. 42 Taxmann.Com 473 (Guj), (v) ITO vs. Shanti Enterprise 71 taxmann.com 275 (Guj), (vi) CIT vs. Ranachhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj), (vii) ITA No.391 & 312/SRT/2023/AY.16-17 Bharatbhai K Kakadiya Nemi Chand KothARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guj) and (viii) CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 221 CTR 511 (Del). The Ld. AR further submitted that assessee is not required to prove the source of the source as the amendment in this regard was brought in the Statute by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2023. He also submitted that assessee has repaid loan of Rs.2,01,00,000…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/530/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

…roducing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. 12.5. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT, 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 248 : (2003) 264 ITR 254] 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: (SCC OnLine Gau para 19) It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee ha…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/531/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

…roducing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. 12.5. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT, 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 248 : (2003) 264 ITR 254] 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: (SCC OnLine Gau para 19) It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee ha…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……” In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69B of the Act:- Neeraj Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 632 (Allahabad - Trib.) Suraj Bhan Oil (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Inc…

Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 206/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Office No.64,3Rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1137H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vs. CIT, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. NFAC, Office No.64,3rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. PAN/GIR No. AABCV1137H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing 13.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 26.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, passed u/s…

Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 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.” 7.4. 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 into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…er of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. ………”. (Emphasis Supplied) In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69/69B of the Act:- In the case of Neeraj Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 632 (Allahabad - Trib.) it is held by t…

Pr. Commissioner Oflncome Tax Delhi - 5 vs. Mrs. Rowena Sharma

ITA/1220/2018HC Delhi11 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80

…ducing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. 12.5. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT, 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 248 : (2003) 264 ITR 254] held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2025 at 12:07:39 ITA 1220/2018 & ITA 12…

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

…13) 350 ITR 220 (Ali) c) CIT vs. Nipuan Auto Private Limited (2014) 361 ITR 155 (Del). d) CIT vs. Orbital Communication Private Limited (2010) 327 ITR 566 (Del) e) CIT vs. Haresh D. Mehta (2017) 86 Taxmann.com 22 (Bombay). f) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GAU) g) Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (BOM), 3.2.15. Despite this, the learned AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant for an aggregate sum of Rs.44,00,000.00 out of the total amount of Rs.68,50,000.00 which was remitted to Kotak Securities Ltd. 3.2.16. Accordingly, Rs.44,00,000.00 was added to the re…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 77/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No.74 to 77/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 to 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1st Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 PAN/GIR No.AHTPM 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 76/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No.74 to 77/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 to 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1st Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 PAN/GIR No.AHTPM 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 75/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No.74 to 77/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 to 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1st Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 PAN/GIR No.AHTPM 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 74/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…ITA Nos.74-77/Rjt/2024 (AYs-12-13 to 15-16) Vishal Mehta 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No.74 to 77/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 to 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1st Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 PAN/GIR No.AHTPM 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal…

Raj Kumari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Jaipur

ITA 1024/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…007] has held as under:- "May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence." Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati)/[2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 635 (Gauhati)(02-09- 2003] held that “………even we do not hold that a transaction, which takes pla ce by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct." 10 Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31(Calcutta)/[1994] 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta)/[1994] 121 CTR 20 (Calcutta) [14-06…

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 540, 1044 & 1045/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2016-17 & 2017-18 cuke M/s Yogesh Ginning Mill The ACIT, Khesti Wale, Near Sitaram Vs. Circle-1, Alwar. Mandir, Govindgarh, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACIPG1584D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri…

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 540, 1044 & 1045/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2016-17 & 2017-18 cuke M/s Yogesh Ginning Mill The ACIT, Khesti Wale, Near Sitaram Vs. Circle-1, Alwar. Mandir, Govindgarh, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACIPG1584D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri…

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…s held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 300/86 Taxman 20 (Raj). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/2004) 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above discussion, the addition is sustained to the extent of Rs. 2.90,92,000 and the appellant gets partial relief in this regard. Further the appellant has also challenged the applicability of amended section 115BBE of the Act to…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…e number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an…