How many judgments cite 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders (220 CTR 622), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT v. Rohini Builders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 234B.

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

220 CTR 622High Court2008#3002 most cited

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

When an assessee proves the identity and creditworthiness of investor companies by providing their PAN, confirmation letters, bank statements, and audited balance sheets, the assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Rohini Builders · section 68 · share application money · addition under section 68 · source of source · identity of investor · creditworthiness of investor · unexplained cash credit · genuineness of transaction · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 234B Section 12AA Section 132

Issues it is cited on

eligible assessee statement under section 132(4)eligible business addition under section 68 source of source section 44a section 44ad share application money disallowance under section 14a rule 46a disallowance u/s 14a genuineness of the transaction

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

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

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-…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…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) (ix). CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (x). CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). C…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…stances of the case. It is further submitted that the source of source and origin of origin of the income of the third person need not be proved by the appellant which is a settled position of law as held by various courts:  Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.)  CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar v. Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR (Pat.)  CIT v. Pragathi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj.)  CIT v. Diamond Products Ltd. (2009) 177 Taxman 331 (Delhi). The appellant submits that the Supreme Court while interpreting the phraseolo…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Guwahati vs. Prag Raj Singla, Guwahati

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

ITA 160/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sengupta, JCIT DRFor Respondent: Shri B. L. Purohit FCA & Shri Subash Purohit, FCA

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI ‘E’COURT, AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) ITO, Ward-3(3), Guwahati Vs. Prag Raj Singla House No. 31, Shiva Niwas, 1stByelane, Ajanta Path, Survey, Beltala, Guwahati-781028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOGPS 3670 G (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assesseeby : Shri Sandip Sengupta, JCIT DR Respondent by : Shri B. L. Purohit FCA & Shri Subash Purohit, FCA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/05/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…I.T.A. Nos. 1033 & 1637/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1033/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited,.................................Appellant 13A, Rangers Club, Govt. Place East, Kolkata-700 069 [PAN: AABCL 2668 M] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,……………………………...............Respondent Circle-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolka…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

Shri Jaipal Singh Mahalawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 365/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Transaction

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain (Adv) &For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)

…na Vs. AP Refinery Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 186/Del/2016 dated 10.02.2017, ITAT Chandigarh 5. Reliance was also placed by the ld AR on the judicial pronouncements laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aravali trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Kanhailal Jangid Vs ACIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) and it was contended that the principles laid down in these judicial pronouncements are fully applicable to the present case. The fact that the explanation furnished by the aforementioned six creditors about the sources wherefrom they acquired the money was not acceptable by the reven…

Shri Lalit Kumar Paryani, Ajmer vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1107/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 131Section 68

…of the loan creditors. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. P. Mohamakala, 161 taxman 169 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, 220 CTR 622 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has pointed out that the assessee produced the cash flow of each of the loan creditors along with the confirmation to prove that the sufficient amount was available to grant the loan to the assessee. Hence he has pleaded that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT (A) be deleted. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitte…

Wood Craft Exports Co. Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3802/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Pratiyush Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.3802/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Woodcraft Export Co. Pvt. The Income Tax Ltd., Sheopuri Mandi, Officer, Ward-3(4), vs. Ganpat Sarai, Pul Saharanpur. Kambohan, Saharanpur.– PIN – 247 001. PIN - 247 001 (U.P.) U.P. PAN AABCW1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pratiyush Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2019 ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarna…

M/S Anjani Associates, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

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

ITA 27/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 68

…vs. Metachem Industries, (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP). (ii) CIT vs. Abdul Aziz, (2012) 251 CTR 58 (C.G.). (iii) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). (iv) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal, (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.). (v) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.). (vi) ITO vs. Shri Koushal Agarwal, ITA No.220/BLPR/2010 (ITAT Raipur). (vi) ITO vs. Gauram Prasad Nishad, ITA No.101/BLPR/2012 (ITAT Raipur). (viii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, 208 taxmann.com 35. 12. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.…

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 858/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…of source". Other judgments relied upon on similar issue are as under :- -: 19 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. - ._ S.No Reference Citation Relevant Para CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance 1 354 ITR 296 (Del) Para 7 Ltd 2 Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Para 20 Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) Para 8 3 Para 5 & 6 4 CIT vs. Glocom Impex P Ltd 299 ITR 571 (Del) 5 CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment 330 ITR 298 (Del) Para 12 6 CIT vs People General Hospital Ltd 356 ITR 65 [MP] 7 CIT v.Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Del) 8 Pr. CIT vs. Mahakaushal Sugar & 30 ITJ 316 (MP) 9. After…

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 857/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2005-06

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

Shri Sachin Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4577/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, CA & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…law that source of source cannot be a basis to make an addition uls 68 of the Act and, on facts burden of the assessee stand discharged and accordingly, the addition of Rs. 16 lacs is deleted. My aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- a) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO "held that neither the provisions of section 68 nor on general principle it can be said that once the existence of person in whose name credits are found in the books of the assessee is proved and such person own such credit with the assessee, still the assessee is to further prove the source from which credit…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…xman 331 (Del.) c) CIT vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) d) ITA No. 1583/Del/2011 AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case of DCIT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. 5 i) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT ii) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO e) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k)…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation, 103 ITR 344, decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case of CIT - Divine Lasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Delhi High Court], wherein it is held as under: The tribunal has further found that the…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sonali Punj, New Delhi

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

ITA 3717/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the appellant has filed a number of case laws for the proposition that for establishing the creditworthiness of the payer, the source of the source is not to be enquired into", On this issue, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co. 220 CTR 622 held as under:- 10 ITA Nos.3717 & 3718/Del./2011 "Neither the provisions of s. 68 nor on general principle, it can be said that once the existence of persons in whose name credits are found in the books of the assessee is proved and such persons own such credits with the assessee still the assessee is to further prove the source from which the…

M/S. Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2436/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhirshri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…. Films Vs. ITO [1993] 44 TTJ 644 [Cochin]. 4. Anil Kumar Midha [HUF] Vs. ITO [2006] 100 TTJ 644 [Jodhpur] 5. CIT Vs. Shriram Syal Hydro Power (P) Ltd [2010] 78 CCH 195 [SC] 6. CIT Vs. Goyal Sons Golden State [2012] [Del] 7. Aravali Trading Co. VS. ITO [2008] 220 CTR 622 [Raj] 8. CIT Vs. Rajkumar Agarwal [2008] ITA No. 179/Del/2008 [All] 9. The ld. A.R further submitted that proviso to section 68 of the Act is not relevant in the matter of loan and source of source is not required to be established. The ld. A.R further submitted that the assessee has dealt with each and every objection raised by the AO and in th…