DCIT v. Rohini Builders

256 ITR 360High Court2002#142 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.

489

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…mporary loan, did not turn up before him, as discussed in the assessment order. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 , has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the credit…

ITO, Ward-3(2)(10), Surat vs. Sagarbhai Bijalbhai Rabari, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.97/Srt/2017 (Ay 2013-14) & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(5), Surat, Room No.115, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 Shri Sagarbhai Bijaibhai Rabari, 33-34, Ambika Income Tax Officer, Ward- Nagar, Luhar Falia, Nana Vs 3[2][10], Surat, Room No.115, Varachha, Surat-395006 1St Floor, Anavil Business Pan No. Adapr 4150 K Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 254(1)

…ern being a ‘firm’ and had not submitted any details of the source of funds of the concern? 4. Whether on facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision in the case of Ranchhod J Nakhawa [208 Taxman.35 (Guj)], Rohini Builders [256 ITR 360 (Guj)] and Hingora Industries Ltd. [2019/Ahd/208 dated 12.09.2012] especially when the facts of the case of assessee are different than those case and the ae has not been able to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loans, out of which impugned investment to the tune of Rs.2,25,00,000/- has been made?” 2. Brief facts of the cas…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat vs. Shri Sagarbhai Bijalbhai Rabari, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.97/Srt/2017 (Ay 2013-14) & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(5), Surat, Room No.115, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 Shri Sagarbhai Bijaibhai Rabari, 33-34, Ambika Income Tax Officer, Ward- Nagar, Luhar Falia, Nana Vs 3[2][10], Surat, Room No.115, Varachha, Surat-395006 1St Floor, Anavil Business Pan No. Adapr 4150 K Cntre, Hajira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 254(1)

…ern being a ‘firm’ and had not submitted any details of the source of funds of the concern? 4. Whether on facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision in the case of Ranchhod J Nakhawa [208 Taxman.35 (Guj)], Rohini Builders [256 ITR 360 (Guj)] and Hingora Industries Ltd. [2019/Ahd/208 dated 12.09.2012] especially when the facts of the case of assessee are different than those case and the ae has not been able to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loans, out of which impugned investment to the tune of Rs.2,25,00,000/- has been made?” 2. Brief facts of the cas…

Santosh Chopra, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 220/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 220/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Chopra, D-3, Faristha Complex, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acipj9443J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…lanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The law as explained by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360, 370 (Guj). Special leave petition filed was dismissed as reported in [2002] 254 ITR (St.) 275 (SC). I do not find that the said case is applicable in the case of the appellant under consideration as the explanation given by the appellant in his case thereby filing a totally incomplete, bogus/ false confirmations having no details of any nature t…

M/S. Shree Ram Texolene Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shri Ram Texolene Private Limited, I.T.O., B-704Plaza, Ring Road, Ward-2(1)(2), Vs. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Surat. Pan No. Aadcs 3881 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…nd have further shown that 8 Shri Ram Texolene P Ltd. Vs ITO amount of money had been lent to the assessee. I find that no such exercise was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) also held that when assessee proved identity by giving complete addresses, GIR numbers/PAN as well as confirmation alongwith copies of assessment order wherever available and discharged his onus, no addition to be sustained. I further find that loan was received and was repaid through banking channel and there is no allegation that any cash…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2664/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…l leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 17. In the case of CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 Taxman 80F/59 ITR 78 (SC) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/[2003] 127 Taxman 523 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2662/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…l leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 17. In the case of CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 Taxman 80F/59 ITR 78 (SC) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/[2003] 127 Taxman 523 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank…

Rajhans Infratech Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, appeal of assessee is allowed and impugned addition is deleted

ITA 2153/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2Nd Floor, Gk-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd0055F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…tion but before that date the loan stood repaid with interests. 13. So on the facts, aforesaid discussion distinguishes the judgments relied by Ld. CIT(A). On the contrary, the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Rohini builders; 256 ITR 360, as relied by the Ld. AR, is relevant, where Hon’ble High Court has held : “The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee ch…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) Surat vs. Mega Collections Pvt Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 311/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.311/SRT/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAGCM3809C Appellant by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Date of Hearing 08/02/2023 17/04/2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned…

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Surat vs. M/S. Rajlaxmi Infra, Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.163/SRT/2020 (AY 2013-14) (Hearing in Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner of M/s Rajlaxmi Infra Income-tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep SOC, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 PAN No. AAOFR 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr-DR…

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6508/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…P a g e | 1 2 Appeals ACIT-22(3) Vs. M/s Rukhana Enterprises IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) ACIT-22(3) Vs. M/s Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACFR6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date of Pronounce…

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6505/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…P a g e | 1 2 Appeals ACIT-22(3) Vs. M/s Rukhana Enterprises IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) ACIT-22(3) Vs. M/s Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACFR6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date of Pronounce…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 230/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, reported in (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. viii. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, reported in (2003) 182 CTR 373 (Guj) ix. Aseem Singh vs. ACIT, reported in (2012) 19 TTJ 52 (ITAT, Indore) x. Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT, reported in (2011) 131 ITD 127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 229/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, reported in (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. viii. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, reported in (2003) 182 CTR 373 (Guj) ix. Aseem Singh vs. ACIT, reported in (2012) 19 TTJ 52 (ITAT, Indore) x. Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT, reported in (2011) 131 ITD 127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254…

DCIT Central-1, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 228/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, reported in (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. viii. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, reported in (2003) 182 CTR 373 (Guj) ix. Aseem Singh vs. ACIT, reported in (2012) 19 TTJ 52 (ITAT, Indore) x. Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT, reported in (2011) 131 ITD 127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…lied with the notices issued u/s.131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act. In support of his contention the Ld. AR had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ii) DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (iii) Espirit Finco (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 185 TTJ (Delhi) 162. 21. We have deliberated at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities as regards the aforesaid issue in hand, i.e, sustainability of the additions made by the A.O u/s 68 o…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…lied with the notices issued u/s.131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act. In support of his contention the Ld. AR had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ii) DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (iii) Espirit Finco (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 185 TTJ (Delhi) 162. 21. We have deliberated at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities as regards the aforesaid issue in hand, i.e, sustainability of the additions made by the A.O u/s 68 o…

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

…u/s.68 of the Act. It was the submission that the order of the Assessing Officer and that of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 6. In reply, ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360(Guj), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held as follows: P a g e 4 | 12 Assessment Year : 2017-18 “ We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the relevant portion of which we have also extracted in para. 2 above. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) more or less confirme…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot vs. M/S. J. Y. Resources Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 147

…ny iota of doubt on the genuineness of the interest claimed by the assessee which evidences that the amount of interest on the loan by the assessee was genuine. We also find the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein the facts and circumstances were identical to the facts narrated above that loan was received through banking channel and same was repaid along with interest through banking channel. The Hon’ble High Court held as under: “The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the…

M/S Kashiram Atmaram, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of assessee is allowed

ITA 236/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2022 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Kashiram Atmaram Deputy Commissioner Of 3/1949, Siddhi Sheri, Income-Tax, Vs Salabatpura, Surat-395003 Central Circle-(1)(1)(1), Pan No. Aadfk 2670 H Room No.108, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…o prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transaction. To support, the assessee submitted case law of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rohini Builders (2003) 127 Taxman 523(Guj)/[2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 182 CTR 373 (Guj) [19-03-2001] and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR 0138/(1986) 159 ITR 0078 SC. 5. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee confirmed the addition of Rs.35.00 lakh under section 68 of the Act by holding that as per the decision…