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

Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2191/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

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…

JCIT(OSD), Cir.-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 115/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

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…

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 20/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2899/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2899/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.34/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2899/Mum/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) बनाम 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 / Vs. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…s Kaizen Engg. Systems Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions by filing the necessary documents. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements. 1. Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj)(HC) [SLP dismissed by SC (2002) 254 ITR (St.) 275] 2. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.)(HC). 3. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom)(HQ 4. CIT vs. Chandela Trading Co. P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Cal.)(HC) 5. ACIT v. Sanjay M. Jhaveri (2015) 168 TTJ 751(Mum.)(Trib.) 4.7 Considering the evidence brought o…

Fizaan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(1), Kolkata

ITA 166/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

…. Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 added u/s. 68 of the Act and relied on the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 wherein it has been held that the onus of the assessee stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt from such creditors is proved, then in that event no addition u/s. 68 of the Act can be made in the assessee’s hand and in case if the AO is still not satisfied, then he should proceed against the credit…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…he source of income of the alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. Therefore, it was held that in these circumstances, assessee could not do any further and it had discharged the burden laid on it. In the case of Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 [2003] 127 taxman 523 (Guj) it was held that if the identity of the creditors is Proved and the amounts are received by account-payee cheques, the initial burden of proving credit is discharged and the source of credits need not be proved. 6.3.23 In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevi Khadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom), Hon. Bombay HC held that when…

Garima Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1302/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 153

…t. Ltd., New Delhi. 8.2. It is also well settled Law assessee need not to prove the source of the source. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of (1) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC) (2) Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (HC) and Zaffar Ahmed & Co., 30 taxmann.com 269 (All.). It may also be noted here that the ITAT restored the appeals of assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. In A.Y. 2010-2011 the same Ld. CIT(A) passed the Order on 06.07.2020 and on production of the sale deed found that creditworthiness of the creditor is…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics & Packaging (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 737/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…s] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 0157 (MP) iv) Ashok Pal Daga vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 0452 (MP) v) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. STL Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 269 (MP) vii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Khandelwal & Company Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 460 (Bom.) viii) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC) ix) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 0723 (Bom) x) CIT vs. Taj Borewell (2007) 291 ITR 0232 (Mad.) xi) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bro…

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 736/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…s] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 0157 (MP) iv) Ashok Pal Daga vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 0452 (MP) v) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. STL Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 269 (MP) vii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Khandelwal & Company Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 460 (Bom.) viii) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC) ix) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 0723 (Bom) x) CIT vs. Taj Borewell (2007) 291 ITR 0232 (Mad.) xi) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bro…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Famous Vanijya (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 773/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…s] ii) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) iii) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 0157 (MP) iv) Ashok Pal Daga vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 0452 (MP) v) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. STL Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 269 (MP) vii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Khandelwal & Company Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 460 (Bom.) viii) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC) ix) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 0723 (Bom) x) CIT vs. Taj Borewell (2007) 291 ITR 0232 (Mad.) xi) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bro…

M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.to., Ward-2(1), Burdman

ITA 501/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/S. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [Pan No.Aabcl 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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 credito…

Hindon Forege Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3800/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…tions, which took place between creditor and sub-creditor and/or creditworthiness of sub-creditors for these aspects may not be within special knowledge of assessee.” ` 7.4. Decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Gujrat) in which it was held as under : “Assessee had discharged initial onus by providing identity of the creditors by giving their complete address, GIR numbers/permanent account numbers and copies of assessment orders wherever readily available. Assessee had also proved capacity of creditors by showing that amounts were received by account p…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…assessee1 s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary ruling 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.). h. It is also settled law that it is mandatory for the CIT(A) to confront the assessee with any material collected by the CIT (A) at the back of the assessee, and in case of statement of third party recorded at the back of the assessee, opportunity of cross examination has to be offered to the assessee, failing which the said material/st…

M/S Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

ITA 2020/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 250Section 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…

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. El Dorado Biotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1823/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah & Aman ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CITDR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORESHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1823/Ahd/2017 2009-10 The Assistant El Dorado Biotech Pvt. Commissioner of Ltd. 5, Jagnirman Society, Income Tax, Circle- Narvang High School, 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN No. AABCE1885F Revenue by : Shri M.S.A. Khan, CITDR. Assessee by : Shri Ketan Shah & Aman Shah ARs सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing :…

M/S. Matarani Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 15(1), Kolkata

ITA 343/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)

…to another case wherein the main plank on which the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act was because the lenders/creditors [ like directors of share subscribing companies] did not turn up before him, in such a case that is Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court ratio in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, 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 prove…

ITO 14 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Supergold Properties Pvt Ltd.[Successor of M/S Advaya Tex Trading Pvt Ltd], Mumbai

ITA 177/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer- M/s. Supergold 14(3)(4), Properties Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, (Successor of M/s. Room No.482(1), Advaya Tex Trading Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. Shop No.1, Mumbai - 400020 Bldg. No.2, A Wing, Shramik CHS Ltd., Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089 PAN: AACCK2900N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer- M/s. Supergold 14(3)(4), Properties Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Shop No.1, Room…

Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 7130/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…ent in assessee company. Therefore, addition could not be made against the assessee. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the following decisions : 12 ITA.No.7130/Del//2019 M/s. Thirubala Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. DCIT vs., Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (HC) in which SLP filed by the Department have been 1. dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.515 of 2002 Dated 08.01.2002. 2. CIT vs., Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.) (HC) 5.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that the impugned addition is wholly unjustified and the same may be de…

Rahul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 131Section 68

…1 AY 2016-17 Rahul Agarwal आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Hon’ble Shri A. T. Varkey, JM Assessment Year: 2016-17 RAHUL AGARWAL Vs. A.C.I.T-Cir-46, Kolkata PAN: AFRPA4752P Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 14.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 23 .09.2020 For the Appellant Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Ld. AR For the Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT/Ld.DR ORDER Shri A. T. Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), 14, Kolkata dated 04-12-2019…

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Leena Haresh Harde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6429/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 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 ail 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…