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.

73

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 119Section 132(1)Section 144ASection 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 158BG

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)violation of natural justicesection 132(4a)section 132(1)section 40a(3)sanctioning authoritysection 153a(1)section 145(3)search assessmentsection 153dsection 40asection 145

Judgments citing Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Art Housing P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 522/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.522/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-1(1)(1), M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. 534, Aayakar Bhawan, Block No. 302, Mehta Business बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Centre, Khaitan Chambers, Vs. 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahca 6007 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Dharan Gandhi & Shri Vishesh Sangoi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 26.01.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Directing The Deletion Of The Sum Brought To Tax By The 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. Ao As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Moneys Credited In The Books As Share Application Money Rs.45,00,000?"

For Appellant: Ms. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi &
Section 68

…sing officer referred to several decisions as under: 1. Shri Naresh Pahuja 54 taxmann.com 258; 2. M/s. Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (ITA No. 134/JP/2002 dated 10.12.2003); 3. M/s. Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT [2006] 206 CTR (SC) 585; 4. Vijay kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1; and 5. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) 10. The assessing officer concluded as under: 11. In view of the discussion, foregoing facts and findings, the purported share application money of Rs.45,00,000/- is hereby treated as a ‘cash credit’ in the books of the assessee company, whose nature and source is not explained and, therefor…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3096/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

….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) 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…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3094/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

….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) 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…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3093/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

….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) 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…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3092/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

….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) 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…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3091/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

….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) 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…

DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4692/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri J P Bairagra
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 68

…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) 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 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 525/2014 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decision of the Delhi High Court i…

DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4691/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri J P Bairagra
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 68

…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) 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 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 525/2014 9. We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decision of the Delhi High Court i…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

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

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee are to be duly taken into consideration by the Revenue authorities. Reference was also made by it to the decision in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1 (SC) (at pg. 478 of the reports) to reiterate the same principle, i.e., that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, as where the assessee does not produce any evidence about the nature and source of the credit rebutting the presumption of section 68, the same would hold, attracting charge to income tax. In CIT vs. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 IT…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5029/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 260ASection 40ASection 41Section 68Section 69B

…ot be said that any question of law arises for consideration and much less a substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 260A of the I.T. Act. Reliance is placed on the following authorities by the learned Counsel for the above propositions: 1. 330 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 ITR 205 (SC) @ 211,212 (Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. 247 ITR 178 @…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5028/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…that any question of law arises for consideration, and much less a substantial question of law, as contemplated under Section 260A of the I.T. Act. Reliance is placed on the following authorities by the learned Counsel in support of the above proposition: 1. 330 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 12 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 ITR 205 (SC) @ 211,212 (Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. 247 ITR 1…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5025/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…hat any question of law arises for consideration, and much less a substantial question of law, as contemplated under Section 260A of the I.T. Act. Reliance is placed on the following authorities by the learned Counsel in support of the above proposition: 1. 330 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 13 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 ITR 205 (SC) @ 211,212 (Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. 247 ITR 1…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

…w in deleting the addition of Rs.5,64,631/- and Rs.4,84,205 as unexplained credits and interest thereon for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.” 4.4 He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held as under:- “21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been (2006) 5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible…