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 367,154 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

Mishra Infrastructures Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 82/PUN/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.82/PUN/2020 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/s.Mishra Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., 508, 5th Floor, The Income Tax Officer, San Mahu Complex, 5- Bundgarden Road, Opp. vs Ward – 11 (1), Poona Club Ltd., Pune – 411 001 Pune. Maharashtra. PAN AADCM7908F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 05.12.2022 Date of pronouncement : 13.12.2022 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s a…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…the appeal of the assessee is dismissed". x.) After the historic judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), much water has flown under the bridge and earlier judgements namely Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254), Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. (394 ITR 383), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (307 ITR 334), Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (399 ITR 425), ACIT vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (87 taxmann.com 216) and CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (84 taxmann.com 58) will have no application in the prese…

Smt Smt. Priya Soni, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 32/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.32/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Smt. Priya Soni, Vs Ito, Ward-4(5), Raipur C/O-M/S Shivani Jewellers Ramnarayan Soni, Lilli Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur Pan No. : Awips 5478 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.32/RPR/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Smt. Priya Soni, Vs ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur C/o-M/s Shivani Jewellers Ramnarayan Soni, Lilli Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur PAN No. : AWIPS 5478 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख /…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…(xxvii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) . (xxix) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) Nemichand Kothari V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiy…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…(xxvii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) . (xxix) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) Nemichand Kothari V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiy…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…(xxvii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) . (xxix) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) Nemichand Kothari V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiy…

Kalpesh Ratilal Gardharia, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward- 2(3), Kolhapur

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1850/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 !TR 360 (Guj), the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Nemichand Kothadi Vs. CIT (2004) 136 taxman 213: (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Guh) in support of the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 by the AO could not be sustained. Some other cases have also been referred to in the Rejoinder, which mostly dealt with the non-application of the provisions of section 68 of the Act and in fact, the appellant did not ponder much over the merit of his submission an…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Gadumaria, Raigarh

In the result appeal ITA No

ITA 94/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal & Shri N.C.Gupta, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131(1)Section 68

…5, 256 & 257/Mum/ 2010 5. Pr. CIT v. Softline Creations P. Ltd. 387 ITR 636 (Del) 6. CIT v. Nipuan Auto P. Ltd. 227 Taxman 147 (Delhi)(Mag) 7. CIT v. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 8. DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 9. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) 10. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. 11. CIT vs Value Capital Services Pvt Ltd., 307 ITR 334 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material evidence available on record. 14 & CO No.09/RPR/2018 10. On perusal of the report of the ITO, Ward 6(3), New Delhi shown to us at page 1 of the paperbook of the assessee regarding impugned i…

Shri Shri Nishant Jain, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 40

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.199/RPR/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(CG) M/s Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur PAN No. : AGEPJ 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख /…

DCIT -CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

DCIT -CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3751/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

DCIT - CC - 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3750/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

DCIT -CC -8 (4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3749/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2854/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2853/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-47 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2852/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that case, the addition was deleted. 20. From the above observation, it is evident that the assessee has furnished required details to substantiate its cla…

Rajat Alloys (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9087/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…& Dev. (P)Ltd. (350 ITR 407); 6. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 339 (Delhi); 7. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P)Ltd. [2104] 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi); 8. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [49 ITR 723] (Bombay H.C.); 9. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254) (Gauhati H.C); 10. CIT vs. Metachem Industries [245 ITR 160] (Madhya Pradesh H.C.); 11. S. Hastimal vs. CIT [49 ITR 273] (Madras). 12. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 13. I have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions rel…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year:2017-18 Dy.C.I.T., Vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Central Circle-2, Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 05/08/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal…

Naresh T. Wadhwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(4), Pune

ITA 792/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Naresh T Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Canara Bank, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabpw 7203 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V.L.Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune’S Order Dated 27.03.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/Ito Wd.8(4)/10658/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.792/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Naresh T Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Canara Bank, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. PAN: AABPW 7203 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri V.L.Jain – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 08/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal fo…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

…e of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Aravali Trading Company Vs. ITO - 220 CTR 622. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has also discussed the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. 333 ITR 100 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is held that assessee had given the details of addresses of the shareholde…