How many judgments cite CIT v. R.S. Rathaore)?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. R.S. Rathaore) (212 ITR 390), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. R.S. Rathaore) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 69, Section 69C, Section 142(1).

CIT v. R.S. Rathaore)

212 ITR 390High Court1995#2853 most cited

What is CIT v. R.S. Rathaore) authority for?

For cash credits under Section 68, the assessee must separately explain each entry, proving the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditor, as mere mention of a file number is insufficient.

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

CIT v. R.S. Rathore · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained money · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · burden of proof · separate explanation for entries · mere file number insufficient

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69 Section 69C Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 106 section 256(2)section 2(12a)section 127(2)(a)section 66 section 256 peak credit theory income tax settlement commission creditworthiness of the creditor section 127(2)section 114 preponderance of probability

Judgments citing CIT v. R.S. Rathaore)

ITO, Rohtak vs. Smt. Madhu Choudhary, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3515/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3515/Del/2012 A.Yr. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-1, Smt. Madhu Choudhary, 160, Sector-14, Rohtak Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak Vs. (Pan: Aaupc9590R) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…for permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. Covered by:- i) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) ii) CIT vs. M. Ganpathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) iii) CIT vs. R.S. Rathore (1995) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Delhi drawing salary and declared total income of Rs. 3,32,310/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI of Rs. 1.00 Lakh. 2.1 As per the AIR information received, the AO noted that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 24,10,000/- in b…