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.

How many judgments cite DCIT v. Rohini Builders?

489 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Rohini Builders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 132, Section 69A.

DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360)

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…er group concerns (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). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…er group concerns (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). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…er group concerns (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). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115…

Shri Shamjibhai M. Sheladiya, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-3(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2022 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shamjibhai M Sheladiya Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Chandanbaug Society, Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Opp. Dharam Nagar, A.K. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Road, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Afxps 3164 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 03.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 06.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act,1961. Sh.Shamjibhai M Sheladiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Invoking Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & In Thereby Taxing Entire Cash Credit Of Rs.15,00,000/- At 30 Percentage.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 80C

…t of loan is made subsequently, addition under section 68 is to be deleted. The assessee further relied on the decision 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], wherein it was held that when assessee proved identity by giving complete addresses, GIR numbers / PAN as well as confirmation along with copies of assessment order wherever available and discharged his onus no addition to be sustained. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High C…

Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Ramoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward -3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

…his submission, the assessee relied upon certain case law including in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd) confirmed in 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 8. On the disallowance of expenses, the assessee stated that assessee furnished the evidence of expense but Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenses instead of making a reasonable disallowance of 10 to 20%. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the addition of advance received against sale of propert…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. R K Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli– CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…td. vs CIT (SC) (vi) CIT vs Jalan Hard Coke Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 331 (SC) & 98 taxmann.com 330 (Raj.) (vii) CIT vs Gangandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom.) (viii) CIT vs Himatsu Bimet Ltd., 12 taxmann.com 87 (Guj.) (ix) DCIT vs Rohini Builders, 182 CTR 373 (Guj.) (x) ITO vs Narmada Thermal Power Ltd. (Surat Trib.) (xi) DCIT vs Ellsons Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Surat Trib.) Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that assessee has explained the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital as well as the loan transactions, therefore the respective addition has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch vs. Salya India Private Limited, Bharuch

In the result, the ground No

ITA 438/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2018 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Salya India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ayan Apartment, Limda Vs Bharuch, 1St Floor, Hari Falia, At & P.O Kamboli, Kunj, Income Tax Office, Bharuch Pan No. Aalcs 7799 C Above Bank Of Baroda Building, Station Road, Bharuch अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

…en date),  Shapoorji Pallanji Vs CIT (44 ITR 891),  Sardari Lal & Co. PCIT (251 ITR 864 (Delhi FB),  DCIT Vs Phoenix Lamps (79 ITR 276 Delhi-Trib),  Orrisa Corporation Vs CIT (159 ITR 78-SC),  Daulatram Rawatmal (87 ITR 349-SC),  Rohini Builders Vs CIT (256 ITR 360 Guj),  Gaurav Triyung Singh Vs CIT (243 ITR 531- Bom),  PCIT Vs Ami Industries India Private Limited (424 ITR 219- Bom),  Sarogi Credit Corporation (103 ITR 334-Pat),  H Hastimal (49 ITR 273 Mad),  S C Ghosal ( 106 ITR 344 Cal),  Bedi & Co Private Limited (144 ITR 352 Kar) and  DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi TMT Private Limited (190 ITD 582- Pune-Trib)…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and the remand report and considering the ratio laid in the decisions of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) , ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises Orient Trading Co Ltd v CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (1963), DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 , Pr CIT V M/s Chawla Interbuild Construction vs Pvt Ltd ITA 1103 of 2015 , Pr CIT Vs Hi-tech Residency 257 Taxman 335 (SC) and CIT Vs Haresh Mehta 251 Taxman 346(2017) passed an order dated 05.11.2018 and deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Ld CIT(A) from his impugned order are reproduced as under…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and the remand report and considering the ratio laid in the decisions of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) , ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises Orient Trading Co Ltd v CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (1963), DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 , Pr CIT V M/s Chawla Interbuild Construction vs Pvt Ltd ITA 1103 of 2015 , Pr CIT Vs Hi-tech Residency 257 Taxman 335 (SC) and CIT Vs Haresh Mehta 251 Taxman 346(2017) passed an order dated 05.11.2018 and deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Ld CIT(A) from his impugned order are reproduced as under…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd, Surat

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

ITA 126/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2020 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd., U-20, Jolly Square, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Room No.114, 1St Floor, Surat-395007 Aaykar Bhavan, Pan No. Aaicm 7912 L Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

…t documents to prove the genuineness of such transactions are filed no addition is to 18 Merrygold Gems Pvt.Ltd. be made against the assessee. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following case law:  Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) [SLP rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 254itr 275 (St)  CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366itr 217 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Avant Grade Carpets Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 165 (All.) 13. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that once payment of loan is accepted as genuine than…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 52/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…he 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 ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd. 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Betex India Limited, Surat

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 174/SRT/2021[2008-9]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…he 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 ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd. 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…

Betex India Limited, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 171/SRT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…he 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 ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd. 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…

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 172/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./ITA No.: 172/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The DCIT, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, PAN: AJSPK 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अ…

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 171/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./ITA No.: 172/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The DCIT, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, PAN: AJSPK 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अ…

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 170/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./ITA No.: 172/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The DCIT, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, PAN: AJSPK 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अ…

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 68

…the assessment proceedings. The source of receipt through banking channel clearly establish the genuineness of the credit which is reflected in the books of accounts. The decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs Rohini Builders - [256 ITR 360] is held that all the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and the repayment of loans have also been made by account payee cheques along with interest in relation to those loans and that the assessing officer having allowed the interest claimed/paid by the assessee in relation to the cash credits cannot treat the cash cred…

Shri Popatbhai Bhudarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 68

…ted that the assessee discharged its initial onus by submitting confirmation, PAN and Bank Statements and the onus was shifted to Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 wherein SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, 208 Taxman 35 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation, 159 ITR 78. 7. As regards Ground no.4, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Hareshkumar Manilal Somaiya, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 191/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Shri Hareshkumar Manilal Somaiya, Circle-2, Vs. Prop Of Rohit Trading Co., Jamnagar. 3-B, Milap Chamber, Grain Market, Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. D.R

Section 144Section 194ASection 68

…yment of the same along with interest also made through banking channel then the genuineness cannot be doubted. In this respect we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein it was 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 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 cheques.” A.Y. 2012-13 7 12.8 We also feel pe…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Saras Spices & Food Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

…ecord. Thus, we can assume that the impugned transaction was the business transactions between the assessee and the loan parties. We also feel pertinent to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat high court in case of the CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein it was 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 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 cheques.” 10.9 In view of the above and after…

DCIT v. Rohini Builders

What is DCIT v. Rohini Builders authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing DCIT v. Rohini Builders

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

Shri Shamjibhai M. Sheladiya, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-3(2), Surat

Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Ramoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward -3(3)(2), Surat

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. R K Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch vs. Salya India Private Limited, Bharuch

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd, Surat

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd., Surat

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Betex India Limited, Surat

Betex India Limited, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Tiruchirapalli

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

Shri Popatbhai Bhudarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Hareshkumar Manilal Somaiya, Jamnagar

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Saras Spices & Food Private Ltd., Ahmedabad