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 367,164 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

Sandeep Maloo, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…P a g e | 1 Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT-CC-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFCPM7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Jayant Bhatt Respondent by : Kishore Dhule Date of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed aga…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 1 & 2/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sampat Lal Lodha Vs Income Tax Gandhi Road, Officer, Nathdwara Ward-02, Rajsamand (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AATPL 6272 A Assessee By Sh. Mukul Moondra, C.A. Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 02/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are two appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the National Face…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 1 & 2/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sampat Lal Lodha Vs Income Tax Gandhi Road, Officer, Nathdwara Ward-02, Rajsamand (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AATPL 6272 A Assessee By Sh. Mukul Moondra, C.A. Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 02/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are two appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the National Face…

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

…s been properly taxed in the hands of the creditor. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 ITR 273 as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 and submitted that once the assesse has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor by producing the loan creditor before the AO along with all the relevant details and documentary evidences and also prove the genuineness of the transactions as the loan was taken through banking channel and the AO in the assessm…

Vishan Raj Jain (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 193/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ons. 6. The Ld. AR had also drawn our attention to the decisions of the tribunal in the following cases. i. Rajkumar B..Agarwal vs. DCIT [ITAt, Pune] ii. Pankaj Agarwal & Son (HUF) vs. ITO [ITAt, Chennai] iii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) Guwahati H.C. (264 ITR 254 iv. CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., Kolkata H.C. (208 ITR 465) v. CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC) vi. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) vii. Sanath Kumar vs. ACIT, New Delhi (ITAT, Delhi) (122 taxmann 75) 7. On the other hand the DR for the revenue had submitted that the assessee was rightly charged under section115BBE. In…

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…f the creditor. There is no liability on an assessee to prove the source of source. In case of the appellant it is found that the bank account of these parties' credits by cheque, before payment to assessee is made. In case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court examined the question of proving creditworthiness of sub-creditors. It was held by the Hon'ble Court that:- (i) If sections 106 and 68 have to survive together, the logical interpretation will be that while the assessee has to prove only his special knowledge, i.e., the source from where he has received the credi…

Santosh Chopra, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 220/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 220/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Chopra, D-3, Faristha Complex, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acipj9443J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 220/RPR/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Chopra, D-3, Faristha Complex, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN : ACIPJ9443J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Praveen Jain & Smt. Priya Godheja, CAs Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 घोष…

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 49/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata............................................................................Appellant Vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd..................................................................Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, 1St Floor, Room No.6A, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aabct3982C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.4,53,50,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata............................................................................Appellant vs. M/s Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd..................................................................Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, 1st Floor, Room No.6A, Kolkata-1. [PAN:AABCT3982C] Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2664/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ould have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by' treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69." 18. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003] 264 ITR 254 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 Hon'bl…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2662/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ould have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by' treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69." 18. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003] 264 ITR 254 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 Hon'bl…

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M.D.Ornaments (P) Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 646/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.646/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. M/S M.D. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd..….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aaacd9561A] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 19, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.2,28,00,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.646/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........….…… Appellant vs. M/s M.D. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd..….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [PAN:AAACD9561A] Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl.…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 230/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…x. Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT, reported in (2011) 131 ITD 127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender in the assessm…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 229/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…x. Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT, reported in (2011) 131 ITD 127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender in the assessm…

DCIT Central-1, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 228/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…x. Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT, reported in (2011) 131 ITD 127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender in the assessm…

Alwar General Finance Co. (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

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

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,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. 332/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 M/s. Alwar General Finance Co. (P) Ltd. cuke The ACIT Vs. 148, Alka Puri, Kali Mori Phatak Circle-1 Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 4988P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4038/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3117/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…he following case laws in support of the action of the Ld CIT(A) Court / Case Laws Citation Tribunal ITA No. ITO Vs Superline Construction Pvt Ltd Mumbai ITAT 3645/Mum/2014 168 TTJ 751 ACIT Vs Sanjay M Jhaveri Mumbai ITAT (2015) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT and 264 ITR 254(2003) Gauhati HC Another CIT Vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 Bombay HC CIT Vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhe…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…he following case laws in support of the action of the Ld CIT(A) Court / Case Laws Citation Tribunal ITA No. ITO Vs Superline Construction Pvt Ltd Mumbai ITAT 3645/Mum/2014 168 TTJ 751 ACIT Vs Sanjay M Jhaveri Mumbai ITAT (2015) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT and 264 ITR 254(2003) Gauhati HC Another CIT Vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 Bombay HC CIT Vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhe…