DCIT v. Rohini Builders

256 ITR 360High Court2002#141 most cited

What is DCIT v. Rohini Builders authority for?

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

485

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Rohini Builders · Rohini Builders · Section 68 · cash credit · initial onus · identity creditworthiness genuineness · repayment of loan · cheque payments · PAN · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

182 CTR 373127 Taxmann.com 523

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 132Section 69ASection 148Section 131

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourcestatement under section 132(4)permanent account numberaddition under section 68retracted statementpaper companyshare application moneygenuineness of the transactionaddition u/s 68section 131section 133(6)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Rohini Builders

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…s income lies on the Revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) / [2002] 122 Taxman 437 (Gujarat) has held that once the assessee has furnished complete details along with supporting evidences, no addition can be made without bringing contrary material on record. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 254 (Delhi) / [2012] 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)…

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2225/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148

…d Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2224/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 148

…d Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. AGARWAL EARTH MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

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

ITA 6084/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vs. Agarwal Earth Movers B-Block, New Cgo Complex, Private Limited, Nh-Iv, Nit Fartidabad 1316, Sector-29, Faridabad Haryana Haryana-121001 [Pan: Aadca7184K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyaya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…by assessee was not justified.” (d) CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 206 (Rajasthan HC) “Where loans were repaid and the transactions were through banking channels, no addition under Section 68 was justified.” (e) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat HC) “Suspicion cannot replace evidence; where identity and genuineness are established and repayments are made, no addition is warranted.” 5.4.6. The addition of Rs.4,50,000/- relating to commission payment had been made u/s 69C which is related to addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s on the premise of unexplained credit. Once the addition u…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…GH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INCOME T…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…plained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004 dated 18.02.2006 (Kar) Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT ITA No. 2038/D/2009 ITO vs. M/s Emperor Inter…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…GH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INCOME T…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…plained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004 dated 18.02.2006 (Kar) Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT ITA No. 2038/D/2009 ITO vs. M/s Emperor Inter…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…GH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INCOME T…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…plained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004 dated 18.02.2006 (Kar) Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT ITA No. 2038/D/2009 ITO vs. M/s Emperor Inter…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…plained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004 dated 18.02.2006 (Kar) Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT ITA No. 2038/D/2009 ITO vs. M/s Emperor Inter…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…plained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004 dated 18.02.2006 (Kar) Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT ITA No. 2038/D/2009 ITO vs. M/s Emperor Inter…

CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 216/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…sions: (i) High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Pragati Co-operative Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170,179 wherein vide para 18 has held that; "This court is in respectful agreement with the aforesaid principles. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360, this court has while dismissing the departmental tax appeal upheld the approach of the Tribunal based on the judgment of the Patna High Court that an assessee can be asked to prove the source of credit in the books but cannot be asked to prove the source of the source." (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Prayag Tendu Leaves Proc…

SHRI NAVEEN GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenaveen Goyal Prop. Vs. Ito Ward 1(1) Naveen Trading Company S-4, Bikaner Anaz Mandi, Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Babpg 8637 D Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac] Delhi Dated 21.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer Which Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts & Is Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. The Proceedings U/S 144 Are Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Made By Assessing Officer By Assuming Deemed Income Of Commission @ 4% On The Loan Taken Amount 17,50,00,000/- Taxed It At As An Income From Other Source. Both The Authorities Have Totally Ignored Whole Relevant Facts & Documents Submitted By The Appellant. So The Addition So Made Is Arbitrary & Unwarranted. The Unsecured Asst. Year: 2018-19 2 Loan Taken Rs. 17,50,00,000/- During The Year Is Genuine & Fare So The Addition May Kindly Be Quashed. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Interest Charged U/S 234A, 234B & 234C Of The Act. 4. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 3. The Sole & Common Issue Challenged In The Grounds Of Appeal Pertains To An Addition Rs. 70 Lakh By Treating 4% Deemed Commission On Allegedly Routing Money Of A Director Of The Company By Way Of Treating Shares Of 17.50 Cr As Against Unsecured Loan Of Rs. 17.00 Crore Taken From M/S Vikas Granaries Ltd.

Section 144Section 234A

…der is assessed to tax, and in such a case, the assessee is required to file a confirmation with particulars of PAN only. Our view gets support from the judgements in the cases of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC); CIT Vs. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360) (Gujrat HC.); CIT VS Metachem Industries 2245 2360 Gauhati HC);Real Time Marketing 221 CTR 716 and Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331 Raj HC. 9. Without prejudice to the above facts and merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that on parity of facts in the case of appellants AUNTY Munni Devi Goyal which was also reassessed on the same…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 860/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 859/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 682/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PARVATI RESOURCES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 68

…was taken from a a company having own sources and recorded a finding that the lender company has sufficient resources to lend money. The Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in para 4.6 that the AO relied on the third-party information without giving any cross examination to the assessee and held that no addition can be made on the basis of information from third party by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2019) 418 ITR 315.…

M/S. SOUTH WEST PINNACLE EXPLORATION LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (PAN : AAKCS3608R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Lear…

JIGNA KUNDAN BHATT,VIRAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5265/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…, and once primary evidences are furnished, no addition can be made merely on suspicion:  CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC)  PCIT v. Ami Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (424 ITR 219) (Bom.) 8 Jigna Kundan Bhatt  DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360) (Guj.) 19. It was also pointed out that a similar addition made in the hands of the assessee’s son, in respect of borrowings from the same lender family, stood deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jay Kundan Bhatt v. DCIT, ITA No. 5264/MUM/2025, order dated 03.12.2025. 20. In respect of addition of Rs. 57,83,972/- under section 69A of…

Showing 1–20 of 485 · Page 1 of 25

...