103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders

220 CTR 622High Court2008#3006 most cited

What is 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders authority for?

Once the assessee proves the existence of the creditors and that they own the credits, the assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditors' funds. The Assessing Officer cannot assume deposits are the assessee's money merely because the depositors' explanation of their sources is not accepted.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Rohini Builders · 103 ITR 344 (Pat) · Section 68 · cash credits · source of source · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness · loans · share application money

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 12AASection 132

Issues it is cited on

eligible assesseestatement under section 132(4)eligible businessaddition under section 68source of sourcesection 44asection 44adshare application moneydisallowance under section 14arule 46adisallowance u/s 14agenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

…he parties from whom loans were taken by assessee and has thus deleted the addition made by ld.AO. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements— Aravali Trading Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 187 Taxman 338 (Rajasthan)/[2008] 220 CTR 622 (Rajasthan)[25-01-2007] Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1993-94 - Whether once existence of persons in whose names credits are found in books of assessee is proved and such persons own such credits with assessee, assessee is not required to prove sources from which creditors could have acquired money to be…

SRS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO(E), FARIDABAD

ITA 941/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ast, he placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements and prayed for the deletion of the additions so made:- [i] Mangilal Agarwal (Late) vs ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj.); [ii] Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (Raj.HC) 219 CTR 571; [iii] Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj.); [iv] CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); [v] Tolaram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam); [vi] CIT vs Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.); and [vii] Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…Chand Kothari 264 1TR 254 (Gau) iv) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. IT.A.C. LTD: (ITA 1194/2007) v) Rajokri Farms Pvt Ltd (ITA 1410/2008); vi) Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331- vii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. /TO 219 CTR 571 HC (Raj) viii) Aravali Trading Co vs ITO 220 CTR 622 HC (Raj); ix) Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Micro Melt (P.) Ltd. 177Taxman 35 HC (Guj) 5.12 It is further submitted that while making the impugned additions of Rs. 35 crores, learned AO did not bring any evidence to rebut the evidences furnished by the 'As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor Gen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…uj) (vii) Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO, 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (viii) CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 (Patna) (x) DCIT v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xi) Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO, 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (xii) ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd., 70 SOT 368 (xiii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (xiv) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 29. He submitted that when the assessee has proved the source of the investor companies by producing their PAN, letters of confirmation, bank statements, audited bala…

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e furnished their bank statements, copies of income tax return and copies of their balance sheets, no addition qua such credits can be made. Reliance was placed on the judgments ; • Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO, (Raj), 219 CTR 571 • Aravali Trading Co. vs. I.T.O. 220 CTR 622 (H.C. of Raj) • CIT vs. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal: Income Tax Appeal no. 179 of 2008 dt. 17.11.2009 (Allahabad High Court). • Mangilal Agarwal (Late) vs. ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj) • CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 4.1 It was submitted that once assessee points out the depositor from whom he has received money and depositor earns the advan…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…T (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other grou…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…T (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other grou…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…T (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other grou…

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MRS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/s. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot PAN : AABCA 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee by : Written Submission Revenue by : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANN…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

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

…following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 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 h…

PRAKASH GODHWANI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

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

…ITA no. 220/BLPR/2010 dt. 18.07.2013 If the AO was not convinced with the reply of lenders, he should have made some further enquiry and the onus upon the assessee is only to establish prima facie capacity of the lenders. Aravali Trading Company vs ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.) Merely because the explanation of creditor about the source of money was not acceptable, it cannot be presumed that the deposit made by the creditor is assessee’s money. 12. Majority of the loans repaid: - Mrs. Anju Godhwani - In FY 2018/19 Mrs. Sulochana Godhwani - In FY 2020/21 Shri Bharat Kumar Godhwani - In FY 2018/19 5 6. Further Ld…

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 case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case 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 IT…

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), MUMBAI vs. SURINDER ANANTRAM SABHLOK, MUMBAI

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

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

…e case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case 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 Gauhatiin 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. 5 Appeals DCIT, CC-8(1) Vs. Shri Surinder Anantram Sabhlok 10 The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Co…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, M/s. Rohan Developers Central Circle-8(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.658, 112-122 Hira Bhavan, 6th Floor, Vs. Raja Ram Mohan Roy Aayakar Bhavan, Road, M.K. Road, Prathan Samaj, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400 004 PAN: AACCA7661A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-…

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders (220 CTR 622) — Cited in 39 Judgments | BharatTax