How many judgments cite Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (330 ITR 1), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 119, Section 132(1), Section 144A, Section 153A, Section 153C.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

330 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2011#1551 most cited

What is Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court's decision in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT is cited to support arguments in subsequent tax cases.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT · 330 ITR 1 · Supreme Court · tax case citation · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 119 Section 132(1)Section 144A Section 153A Section 153C Section 153D Section 158BG

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)violation of natural justice section 132(4a)section 132(1)section 40a(3)sanctioning authority section 153a(1)section 145(3)search assessment section 153d section 40a section 145

Judgments citing Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…fact, a receipt back of loan, where the borrower is not shown to have the capacity for the same – as in the instant case where he is the assessee’s servant, admittedly a man of no means, is itself liable to be taxed u/s. 68 (see: Vijay K. Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1 (SC)), i.e., irrespective of whether the receipt back is in cash – again liable for penalty u/s. 271E, or not, i.e., through the banking channel; the transaction being regarded as not genuine. Why, one may ask, would any person give ‘loan’ to such a person, i.e., knowing fully well that the latter does not have the capacity to repay? And, besides,…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Narendra R

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

ITA/259/2014HC Karnataka10 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…s of fact and findings of fact are concurrent in nature and therefore, no interference is called for. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on ‘KULWANT KAUR VS. GURDIAL SINGH MANN’, (2001) 4 SCC 262, ‘VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT’, 330 ITR 1 (SC), ‘K.RAINDRANATHAN 11 NAIR VS. CIT’, 247 ITR 178 (SC), ‘SUDHARSHAN SILKS AND SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 (SC), ‘CBDT NOTIFICATION NO.890(E) DATED 26.09.2000, ‘CIT VS. M.L.OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD’, 271 CTR 553 (DEL), ‘CIT VS. MS/KIRAN KAPOOR’, 372 ITR 321 (DEL), ‘CIT VS. B.SURESH’, 313 ITR 149 (SC), ‘CIT VS. PEERL…

M/S Nam Estates Pvt. Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/32/2013HC Karnataka07 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.32 OF 2013 BETWEEN: M/S. NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD., NO.150, 1ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT BANGALORE-560001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ACCOUNTS AND TAXATION SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O R. DHARMALINGAM). ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(1), # 14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... R…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bygging India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1482/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 9(2)(1), M/S. Bygging India Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 9, R.N.A. Arcade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, M.K. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaacb0642E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R

Section 115JSection 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT 9(2)(1), M/s. Bygging India Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., 2nd Floor, 9, R.N.A. Arcade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, M.K. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400053 PAN: AAACB0642E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Satish R. Mody, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appe…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 " Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 " M.A. Unneerikutty Vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 " CIT vs. P. Mohankaia (2007) 291 ITR 278 " Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 " Shri Hersh W. Chadha, (Legal heir of Late Sh. W.N. Chadha) Vs. DDIT, Circle-1(1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Dei/2005 " CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 2 ITR-OL 68 (Delhi); (2014 206 DLT 97 (DB) " Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 " Littlewoods Mail Order Stores [1970] 75 ITR 327 (CA) " Juggilalkamlapat [1969] 73 ITR 702…

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…credit i.e identity, mode of receipt and credit-worthiness / sources of the cash creditors, the impugned transactions i.e. Unsecured Icans cannot be treated as genuine. On the issue in dispute, the hon'ble The Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1/ 196 Taxman 136 [2010] 8 taxmann.com 264 (SC) the same principle was applied in the following observations: "24 .... AII the authorities below, in particular the Tribunal, have observed in unison that the assessee did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption drawn against him under Section 68 of the Act, by producing the parties in whose n…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…ai)] • Aim Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer [ITA No.7426/Mum/2012 dated 04.12.2013 (Mumbai] He further placed reliance on the following judgments: Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011]330 ITR 1 (SC) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Bikram Singh ITA.No. 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.525/2014. 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decision of the Delhi High Co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5638/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri V.C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…estments Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer [ITA No.7426/Mum/2012 dated 04.12.2013 (Mumbai] 23 Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain He further placed reliance on the following judgments: Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011]330 ITR 1 (SC) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Bikram Singh ITA.No. 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.525/2014. 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decision of the Delhi High Co…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…bai)] • Aim Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer [ITA No.7426/Mum/2012 dated 04.12.2013 (Mumbai] He further placed reliance on the following judgments: Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011]330 ITR 1 (SC) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Bikram Singh ITA.No. 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.525/2014. 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decision of the Delhi High Cou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Aangan Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aabce 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department By : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh ChothaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…i)] • Aim Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer [ITA No.7426/Mum/2012 dated 04.12.2013 (Mumbai] He further placed reliance on the following judgments: Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011]330 ITR 1 (SC) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Bikram Singh ITA.No. 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.525/2014. 19 M/s. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that…

Income Tax Officer Ward-30(3), Kolkata vs. Sanjeev Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2190/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2190/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-30(3), Kolkata -Vs- Sanjeev Kejriwal [Pan: Aevpk 7424 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA

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

…e we hold that the primary onus and the three ingredients of section 68 has not been discharged by the assessee in the instant case. We hold that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had addressed the very same issue in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT reported in 330 ITR 1 dated 06.12.2010 against the assessee. Hence the primary argument advanced by the ld AR on behalf of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in the instant case. 6. However we find that the ld AR had made an alternative argument before us stating that in case if the said credit to the account of the sundry debtors are not believed to be genuine by t…

Prl Comm of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad vs. M/S Nuzividu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…hese were also paid for in advance and, if so, the number of consignments that were so, would be the question. In short, all gets subsumed in proving the genuineness of the transactions, stated to be in the course of trade. In Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court examined the assessee’s explanation of the receipt of money as being from a trade debtor, and finding the same as not proved, confirmed the addition u/s. 68. The books of account of the customers, extracts from which for the current year, stated to be furnished by them, for both the current and the following year, shall be extr…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…the credit is, or can be said to be so proved, or not, is the question, and which is principally a question of fact, as again emphasized time and again by the Apex 6 Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT Court, as recently in Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1 (SC); P. Mohankala (supra) (also refer Balbir Singh v. CIT [2011] 334 ITR 287 (P&H)). 4.3 Coming to the facts of the case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to be satisfied with the credits under the reference as proved, or that the AO, in rejecting the assessee’s explanation qua the nature and source thereof, was not acting reasonably, and ough…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

….09.2013 (Mumbai)] • Aim Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO [ITA No.7426/Mum/2012 dated 04.12.2013 (Mumbai] He further placed reliance on the following judgments: Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011]330 ITR 1 (SC) 21 Shreedham Builders 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Bikram Singh ITA.No. 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.525/2014. 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decisio…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fern Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3390/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 131(1)Section 133Section 68

…account details of the shareholders, has provided balance sheet of shareholders, confirmation of the shareholders and many other documentary evidences which show the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholder. iii. In case of Vijay Talwar v. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 wherein it is held that: "24. ....All the authorities below, in particular the Tribunal, /;," in unison that the assessee did not produce any evidence to re:".: presumption drawn against him under section 68 of the Act, by producing the parties in whose name the amounts in question had been credited by the assessee in his books of account. In the a…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.K.Transport & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Korba(Cg)

In the result, all appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR

Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…PR/2014 CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/2015 (ix) Rathi Finlease Ltd. (IT. Appeal No. 63 of 2004, dtd 11-10-2007) (x) MAF Academy P Ltd (ITA no. 341 /2012) dated 28.11.2013; (xi) Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. (333 ITR 119/ 198); ( ( xii) VijayKumarTalwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1/196 (S.C) xiii) Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd. (135 LTD 270); 10. It was further held that inquiries conducted by the A.O. cement the findings that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors were not established, they were found to have no capacity and purpose to invest by way of share application money in the assessee's company. Accordingly…