CIT v. H.S. Builders (P) Ltd.

78 DTR 169High Court2012#10128 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditoraddition u/s 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 131agricultural incomeunexplained cash creditescapement of incomereason to believeundisclosed incomeincome-tax officer

Judgments citing CIT v. H.S. Builders (P) Ltd.

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…as unexplained on the ground that cash was deposited in the bank account almost immediately before advancing the same to the assessee. In this regard, it is submitted that assesseehad quoted decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HS Builders 78 DTR 169. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court had held that depositing of cash in the bank account of the creditor just before loan to the assessee would not lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee. As regards, failure of the creditor to appear u/s 131, the assessee had quoted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca…

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…56 (All).Also\nrefer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar\nBuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the\naddition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law.\n4.3In CIT v/s H.S. Builders (P) Ltd 78 DTR 169(Raj.): Tribunal was\njustified in deleting the addition after finding that the assessee had submitted\nthe accounts of return, the computation of income and the balance sheets of\ncreditors and also supplied all their particulars, that the money given to the\nassessee had been shown in the respective balance sheet of the creditors and\nthat the cr…

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…/1/2019 (ITAT, Jaipur) Without examination or investigation in the case of the investors or disputing the documents or controverting the facts submitted by the assessee, the addition in the hands of the company cannot be sustained. (7) CIT Vs. H.S. Builders 78 DTR 169 (Raj) Deposit of cash in the account of the creditor just before giving loans to the assessee company would not lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee company. Therefore, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition. (8) Lalitha Jewellery mart (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2018) 99 taxmann.co, 408 (Mad) Where the assessee com…

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

ITA 1024/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…2015) 372 ITR 232 (Kolkata High Court) Mere omission on the part of the creditors to subject themselves to the enquiry by the revenue or their failure to furnish accounts would not lead to the conclusion that the creditors were bogus. (5) CIT Vs. HS Builders 78 DTR 169 (Rajasthan High Court) Deposit of cash in the account of creditors just before giving loan to the assessee would not lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee. (6) Mangilal Agarwal Vs. ACIT reported in 300 ITR 372 (Rajasthan High Court) It was held that where the assessee points out a depositor from whom he has received…

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…/1/2019 (ITAT, Jaipur) Without examination or investigation in the case of the investors or disputing the documents or controverting the facts submitted by the assessee, the addition in the hands of the company cannot be sustained. (7) CIT Vs. H.S. Builders 78 DTR 169 (Raj) Deposit of cash in the account of the creditor just before giving loans to the assessee company would not lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee company. Therefore, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition. (8) Lalitha Jewellery mart (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2018) 99 taxmann.co, 408 (Mad) Where the assessee co…

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…atter therefore touches upon appreciation and evaluation of evidence and does not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, so as to justify interference by the Court in the matter.” xii] CIT v/s H.S. Builders (P) Ltd. reported in 78 DTR 169 (Raj) “It is at once clear from the perusal of the orders as passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that so far the 25 creditors already assessed to tax [categories (B) to (E)] were concerned, the CIT(A) perused the entire record; and examined the explanations offered by the assessee and by the creditors in detail before accepting the same; and the…

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…atter therefore touches upon appreciation and evaluation of evidence and does not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, so as to justify interference by the Court in the matter.” xii] CIT v/s H.S. Builders (P) Ltd. reported in 78 DTR 169 (Raj) “It is at once clear from the perusal of the orders as passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that so far the 25 creditors already assessed to tax [categories (B) to (E)] were concerned, the CIT(A) perused the entire record; and examined the explanations offered by the assessee and by the creditors in detail before accepting the same; and the…

ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

…Tribunal and we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order of the ITAT so as to call for any interference of this Court. In our view, no substantial question of law arises out of the order passed by the ITAT.” CIT Vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC) In this case, order of CIT(A) deleting addition u/s 68 was upheld by Tribunal after finding that assessee had submitted the accounts of return, computations of income, balance sheets of the creditors and also supplied all their particulars to evidence that the money given to the assessee had been shown in the respective balance sheets…

SMT. LEELA KOTHARI,BEAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1251/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 43CSection 68

…efore, the assessee has discharged her onus in respect of all the 9 loan creditors. In support of his contention, the ld. A/R has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 224 Taxman 87 (Raj. HC)(Magz.) CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P) Ltd. 78 DTR 169 (Raj. HC) CIT vs. Deen Dayal Choudhary 148 DTR 275 (Raj. HC) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has conducted a thorough enquiry during the assessment proceedings as well as during the remand 7 8 Smt. Leena Kothari, Beawar. proceedings and has established that the assessee has failed to establish the creditworthiness o…

SMT. NILAM JAIN,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, ALWAR

In the result, we set-aside the matter to the

ITA 903/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 145(3)Section 68

…s unjustified. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) • CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) • CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.)Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) • Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) • Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There are two transactions of unsecured loan taken by the assessee from her…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI vs. SHRI SATISH KUMAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 637/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

…: 1. CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) (HC) 3. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) 4. CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC) 5. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) 6. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) (HC) 7. Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) (HC) In view of above, the addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the ground of the department be dismissed. 7. We have…