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 366,416 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. Sh. Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 48/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153CSection 158BSection 254(1)

… Jai Karan Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle 25(1), New Delhi [2012] 23 taxmann.com 300 (Del),  DCIT Vs M/s Creative Trendz Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.272 & 273/SRT/2016 dated 13.11.2020  PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain ITA No.23/2021 dated 12.02.2021  CIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj),  CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. 42 taxmann.com 472 (Gul). 10. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below carefully. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by ld. AR for the assessee. During the assessment year, the Assessing Officer noted that…

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6490/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…pective bank accounts of creditors, which did not flow in shape of money, then, such addition could not be sustained and had been rightly none but assessee himself Action of AO was based on mere suspicion.” In the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat decided that: “Assessee furnished complete addresses of all the creditors along with GIR numbers/PAN as well as confirmations along with copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of individual creditors, wherever available, and copies of returns filed by the creditors in the remaining cases—All loans were rece…

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…pective bank accounts of creditors, which did not flow in shape of money, then, such addition could not be sustained and had been rightly none but assessee himself Action of AO was based on mere suspicion.” In the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat decided that: “Assessee furnished complete addresses of all the creditors along with GIR numbers/PAN as well as confirmations along with copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of individual creditors, wherever available, and copies of returns filed by the creditors in the remaining cases—All loans were rece…

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders $ Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4105/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…pective bank accounts of creditors, which did not flow in shape of money, then, such addition could not be sustained and had been rightly none but assessee himself Action of AO was based on mere suspicion.” In the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat decided that: “Assessee furnished complete addresses of all the creditors along with GIR numbers/PAN as well as confirmations along with copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of individual creditors, wherever available, and copies of returns filed by the creditors in the remaining cases—All loans were rece…

ITO-22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4096/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…pective bank accounts of creditors, which did not flow in shape of money, then, such addition could not be sustained and had been rightly none but assessee himself Action of AO was based on mere suspicion.” In the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat decided that: “Assessee furnished complete addresses of all the creditors along with GIR numbers/PAN as well as confirmations along with copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of individual creditors, wherever available, and copies of returns filed by the creditors in the remaining cases—All loans were rece…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…f Rs. 2,48,75,6847-. Further, the appellant has also relied upon the various judicial pronouncements of various Hon'ble High Courts & Tribunals in his Synopsis of Arguments dated 17/07/2017 submitted before your honour are as under: i) DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) 256 ITR 360 ITA No.744/Ahd/2018 with CO 4 ii) CIT Vs. RanchhodJivabhaiNakhava (Tax Appeal No.50 of 2011) iii) CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.)Ltd.[2014] 42 Taxman.com 473 [Gujarat-HC] iv) CIT Vs Dharmadev Finance (P.)(Ltd.)[2014] 43 Taxman.Com 395(GUJ. HC) v) CIT Vs Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 41 Taxman.Com 493/222 Taxman 15 (Mag.)(GUJ…

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…held that the assessee's burden is confined to prove creditworthiness of investors with reference to the transactions between the assessee and the creditor. M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 25 ITA No. 2595/M/2019 & CO No. 103/M/2021 c. DCIT vs, Rohini Builder, 256 ITR 360 (Guj)- The Hon'ble Court held that if the identity of the parties proved and the transaction is through cheque and the income tax assessment particulars are provide the assessee has discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act. d. RanchorJivabhaiNakhava vs. C1T, 21 Taxman 159 (Guj)- The Hon'ble Court held that once the assessee has established that he…

Hareshgiri Pratapgiri Gaushvami, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2051/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 234ASection 271Section 68

…not required to prove ‘source of source’ of the receipt. Hence, no addition is called for in view of various decisions cited before us inter-alia DCIT v. Rohini Builders I.T.A No. 2051/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 9 Hareshgiri Pratapgiri Gaushvami vs. ITO 256 ITR 360 (Guj), Murlidhar Lahorimal v. Ld. CIT(A) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) etc. in support of his argument that the assessee is not required to prove ‘source of source’ of receipts. As regards, the addition of Rs. 21,11,440/- Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee inherited jewellery and cash of Rs. 20,78,300/- on demise of his father and invit…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sarthav Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 908/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Address, confirmation, contra confirmation and bank statement which were sufficient enough to prove the identity, credit worthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Rohini Builder reported in 256 ITR 360. But Asstt. Year 2010-11 12 the AO failed to make proper consideration of the submission while making addition merely on basis of surmises and conjecture. 16.2 It was also submitted that loan was taken for temporary requirement which were repaid during the year and in case of Kalpesh Patel, Rajesh Enterprises and Sthpathya Sangam within 2 days…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Address, confirmation, contra confirmation and bank statement which were sufficient enough to prove the identity, credit worthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Rohini Builder reported in 256 ITR 360. But the AO failed to make proper consideration of the submission while making addition merely on basis of surmises and conjecture. 23.1 It was also submitted that loan was taken for temporary requirement which was repaid during the year and in case of Rajesh Enterprises within 2 days. The With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 20 fund wa…

DCIT, Central Circle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…there was excess repayment. The repayment of the loan amount by the assessee was duly accepted by the Revenue. In this regard, 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.” 24.4 Thus, there remains no doubt t…

The DCIT, Central Ciircle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shrena S Sutaria, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 796/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…there was excess repayment. The repayment of the loan amount by the assessee was duly accepted by the Revenue. In this regard, 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.” 26.4 Thus, there remains no doubt t…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria -HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 795/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ement and ITR which were sufficient enough to prove the identity, credit worthiness of the parties and genuineness of the With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 21 transactions as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Rohini Builder reported in 256 ITR 360. But the AO failed to make proper consideration of the submission while making addition merely on basis of surmises and conjecture. 22.1 It was also submitted that addition of Rs. 1,69,20,000/- on account loan from Saral Management & Consultancy was unjustified for the reason that loan account of Saral Management & Consultancy is running account…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Dharmen Marble & Stone, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 794/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Address, confirmation, contra confirmation and bank statement which were sufficient enough to prove the identity, credit worthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Rohini Builder reported in 256 ITR 360. But the AO failed to make proper consideration of the submission while making addition merely on basis of surmises and conjecture. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 22 24. It was also submitted that addition of Rs. 3.76 crores on account loan from Saral Management Consultancy was unjustified. As the loan amount of Rs. 3.76 crores inc…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Dukraft Paper Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 452/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…hareholders and the amount were received by account payee cheques, the initial burden on the appellant is discharged.” 10. In support of the case made out by the assessee following judgments were relied upon: (i) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, reported in (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. Vacmetn Packaging India (P.) Ltd., reported in (2014) 45 taxmann.com 204 (Allahabad) (iii) CIT vs. Al Anam Agro Foods (P.) Ltd., reported in (2013) 38 taxmann.com 375 (Allahabad) (iv) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd., reported in (2013) 30 taxmann.com 328 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Bhaval Synthetic, reported in (2013) 35 taxmann.c…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 3596 & 3597/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2013-14) DCIT – 14(3)(1) v. M/s. Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt. Ltd., 401, Rupa Plaza, Above IDBI Bank Room No. 455, 4th Floor Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar(E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400077 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR7176F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shankarlal Jain Department by : Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 3596 & 3597/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2013-14) DCIT – 14(3)(1) v. M/s. Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt. Ltd., 401, Rupa Plaza, Above IDBI Bank Room No. 455, 4th Floor Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar(E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400077 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR7176F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shankarlal Jain Department by : Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR…

Vanditbhai Rajendrakumar Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1569/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 234ASection 271Section 271FSection 56Section 68

…rden cast upon him u/s 68 of the Act. It is a well settled that under the law the assessee can be asked to prove source of credit but not the source of the source as held by various Courts including the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj).In view of the above discussion and the facts of the present case, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in sustaining addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits in the hands of the assessee. 10. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground No. 4 and 5: Addition u/s 56 of th…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 1 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 Jt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Afsand Akhtar, Special Range, Plot No. 2, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823r (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.3, 4, 17 & 5/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018) Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 M/s Afsand Akhtar, Vs. Jt. C.I.T., Plot No. 2, Sche…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 1 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 Jt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Afsand Akhtar, Special Range, Plot No. 2, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823r (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.3, 4, 17 & 5/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018) Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 M/s Afsand Akhtar, Vs. Jt. C.I.T., Plot No. 2, Sche…