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

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

ITA 194/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69BSection 69C

…g channel to all the parties.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.” 93. Thus there remains no doubt that…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Parsoli Motor Works Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2127/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…which has also not been carried out. ITO vs. M/s. Parsoli Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2012-13 9. Further that, we find that reliance has been placed by the Ld. AR on the following judgments by the assessee in support of his case: DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) CIT vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256ITR 795 (SC) CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) CIT vs. Metachem Industries 160 ITR 245 (MP) We have carefully considered the above judgments and we find that the ratio laid down in those matters are not applicable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case before us.…

Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 299/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.299 & 314/M/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Rubberwala Income Tax Officer- Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 5(3)(1), Ground Floor, Room No.526, Rubberwala House, Vs. 5th Floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Agripada, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 011 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCR2994L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in a large no of judicial pronouncements, it had been held the department is free to reopen the individual assessments of the parties in question in accordance with law, but it cannot be trea…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in a large no of judicial pronouncements, it had been held the department is free to reopen the individual assessments of the parties in question in accordance with law, but it cannot be trea…

ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Machinery Agencies India, Kolkata

ITA 2100/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 131Section 68Section 69C

…n rebutting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support CIT(A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra) We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi High…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ssessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary rulling are as under: - • Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) • CIT v. Orissa corporation Pvt. Ltd., 158 ITR 78 (SC) • CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). • Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai for an identical case i.e. Arceli Realty Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer 15(1) (1), Mumbai pronounced on 21.04.2017 ITA- 6492/Mum/2016-17, the summary of the case is outlined as under:- "........A.O. merely relied upon the information provided by the office of DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai and did n…

Ambe Tradecorp Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 53/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Smt Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…77 to 478 of the paper book. 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.” 7.17 With respect to the amount of s…

Kirtiprada Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. 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…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (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…

Swarn Gems P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 x) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) xi) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 94 ITR 680 (Bom) xii) Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. vs. DCIT 60 ITR 355 (Del. Tri.) xiii) Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 61 ITR 352 (Del. Tri.) xiv) DCIT vs. Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd. 60 ITR 7 (Kol. Tri.) As regards Ground No. 4 relating to Gold shortage of Rs. 13,89,000/-, the Ld. AR…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Reliance was place on the following case laws : • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) • Add. CIT Vs. Hanuman Aggarwal [ 1985] 151 ITR 150 (Patna) • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) • M/s Suraj Stones Corporate Ltd. Vs. ITO, Bengaluru in ITA No. 52/Bang/2020 vide order dt. 18/02/2021 (ITAT Banglore) • Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 723 (Mum) • Shri Chunni Lal reported in 211 ITR 11 (Statue) (P&H) 6.4 It was submitted that the deceased assessee apart from declaration from the depositors had also furn…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ourt in CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 298, the decision of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT, [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau), and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) were relied upon. It has been contended that when such evidences have remained un-refuted by the A.O., the question of making an addition u/s 68 of the Act does not arise. Further, per the Ld. A.R., reliance on the Reports of the Inspectors without first putting the same to the assesseea for rebuttal u/s 142(3) of the Act is impermis…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ourt in CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 298, the decision of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT, [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau), and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) were relied upon. It has been contended that when such evidences have remained un-refuted by the A.O., the question of making an addition u/s 68 of the Act does not arise. Further, per the Ld. A.R., reliance on the Reports of the Inspectors without first putting the same to the assesseea for rebuttal u/s 142(3) of the Act is impermis…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…mmoned the persons. Under law the appellant can be asked to prove the source of the credits in the books of account but not the source of the source. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002)256 ITR 360. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against this judgment is reported in (2002) 254 ITR (St.) 275. It is also submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the affidavits submitted by the 3 parties i.e., Sri.K.M.Srinivas, Mrs.Lakshmidevamma and Sri.A.N.Srinivas have stated that they are a…

Dolphin Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata

ITA 240/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 127Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…/remand proceedings. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and following the same, 8 Dolphin Goods (P) Ltd., AY 2009-10 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…been proved by adducing the evidences, it will be presumed that the assessee has discharged his onus in proving the genuineness of the loan and no addition u/s 68 can be made. (iii) That Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case OF CTT VS Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) held that where the assessee has proved the identity of the creditors, and the amounts were received by account payee cheques, the initial burden on the assessee is discharged. The finding of the ITA Nos. 5857 & 5858/Del/2017 60 Harvansh P. Chawla tribunal that cash credit should be treated as proved in absence of any further material to d…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…been proved by adducing the evidences, it will be presumed that the assessee has discharged his onus in proving the genuineness of the loan and no addition u/s 68 can be made. (iii) That Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case OF CTT VS Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) held that where the assessee has proved the identity of the creditors, and the amounts were received by account payee cheques, the initial burden on the assessee is discharged. The finding of the ITA Nos. 5857 & 5858/Del/2017 60 Harvansh P. Chawla tribunal that cash credit should be treated as proved in absence of any further material to d…

ITO - 18(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Kumar Daga HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 6983/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6983/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer Abhay Kumar Daga Huf R.No. 49B, 3R D Floor, Nand Ward 18(1)(-1 R.No. 204 Earnest House, 2 N D Flr., फनाभ/ Bhavan, 59 Babu Genu Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Road, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aahha4495C प्रत्माक्षेऩ ./ Co No. 30/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 6983/Mum/2018 For Ay 2010-11) Abhay Kumar Daga Huf The Income Tax Officer R.No. 49B, 3R D Floor, Nand Ward 18(1)(-1 Bhavan, 59 Babu Genu Road, फनाभ/ R.No. 204 Earnest House, 2N D Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 Flr., Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai, Pin 400 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aahha4495C अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2021

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Chhajed, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…or 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,22,50,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) deleted the additions after considering the case law cited by assessee in the case of DY CIT vs. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360), Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) & H.R. Mehtra Vs. acit in ITA NO. 58 of 2001 and finally held as under: - “4.3.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted loan Confirmations, copies of the Bank Statements and Copies of Income Tax Return of the loan creditors, etc. If the above referred principles are applied to…

J.C.I.T.(OSD), Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Werit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 55/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ectors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and following the same, 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…