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

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ssessee'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.). 16 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd iii. It is also settled law that where the assessee provides identity and details pertaining to the lenders/creditors investor of share application money and is unable to produce them and requests the AO to issue summons u/s 131 for their attendance, it is the duty of the AO to issue s…

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Nextgen Constructions P.Tld (Changed to M/S Aetius Construction P. Ltd Which Is Further Amalgamated With M/S Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3593/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.Daniel-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT- DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…(2011)333 ITR 116 (Kar.): Where the assessee has submitted confirmations & affidavits from the creditors, the onus is not on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. v. Hon. Guiarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Gui): When all the requirements such as complete addresses of all the Creditors along with GIR Nos/ PAN as well as Confirmations along with Copies of Returns filed by the Creditors and all loans were received and repaid by account payee cheques nothing more is required were to be filed. vi. In the case of Hon. Prin. Commissioner of Income Tax. M…

M/S Garware Synthetics Limited, Mira Road vs. Asst CIT Circle-15 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6832/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodgarware Synthetics Limited Vs. Acit,Circle-15(1)(2) Manish Textile Ind. Premises Aaykar Bhawan Opp. Golden Chemicals M.K.Road Penkar Pada, Post Mira Mumbai-400 020 Thane-401 104 Pan/Gir No.Aaacg4208M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Garware Synthetics Limited Vs. ACIT,Circle-15(1)(2) Manish Textile Ind. Premises Aaykar Bhawan Opp. Golden Chemicals M.K.Road Penkar Pada, Post Mira Mumbai-400 020 Thane-401 104 PAN/GIR No.AAACG4208M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Haridas Bhat, AR Revenue by Shri V.Vinod Kumar, JCIT -DR Date of Hearing 24/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order…

Bajaj Parivahan Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2609/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 250

…ing tax at source. The details of the company from which the amount was received were filed. Under these circumstances, the question is whether the addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act. “The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) held as under:- "It has also proved the capacity of the creditors by showing that the amounts were received by the asses see by account payee cheques drawn from bank accounts of the creditors and the assessee is not expected to prove the source of the credits in its books cf account but not the source of the source as held by the Bombay Hig…

M/S Satyam Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2445/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2012-13

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 143(3)Section 3Section 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 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. M/S. Kejriwal Industries Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

…ng Officer cannot ask assessee to further prove genuineness of transactions without first verifying such fact from income-tax returns of lenders. The learned counsel for the assessee further referred and relied in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which laid down that when the assessee has primarily discharged the initial onus laid on him in terms of section DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 32 of 49 68 by providing details to establish genuineness of trans…

Kundan Lal Sachdev, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA and Ms. Rinky Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Ltd vs ITO 2016-TIOL-1881 -ITAT-MUM [DoD: 28/09/2016] Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Shiv Dhooti Pearls and Investment Ltd 2016-TIOL-10-HC- DEL-IT [DoD: 21/12/2015] Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) [DoD: 19/03/2001] 8. On the other hand, ld. DR referring to the various observation of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the primary burden on the assessee has not been discharged because, firstly, the lender company did not initially responded to the notice u/s.133(6); secondly, on inquiry made on the shareholders of…

Meenu Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8333/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiita.No.8333/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Meenu Kapoor, 819 Katra Neel, The Acit, Circle-47(1), Chandni Chowk, Vs., Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi. Pan Aajpk6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.K. Singhal, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 Order Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. This Appeal By Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated 03.09.2019, For The A.Y. 2016-2017, Challenging The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.10,20,45,840/- On Account Of Unexplained Loan Under Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 68

…the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs., Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) held as under : “The assessee was a firm engaged in the business of dealings in land. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has taken loans from various parties and during the course of assessment 16 ITA.No.8333/Del./2019 Meenu Kapoor,Delhi. proceedings, the assessee has furnished the loan confirmations giving full…

M/S. Hiren Silk Mills, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2271/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2271/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, Gidc, S Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. Sachin, Surat. . [Pan: Aadfh 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Stay Petition No.01/Srt/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2271/Ahd/2016) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, Gidc, S Sachin, Surat. . [Pan: Aadfh 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

…Page 1 of 11 Hiren Silk Mills Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2),Surat /ITA No.2271/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2271/AHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, GIDC, s Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. Sachin, Surat. . [PAN: AADFH 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Stay Petition No.01/SRT/2020 (arising out of ITA No.2271/AHD/2016) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

Shri Lalchand Dhariwal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2623/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2623/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Lalchand P. Dhariwal, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Adinath Textile , Ward- 1(2)(3) Surat O-21-23 Bombay Market Umarwada Surat Pan: Aatpd 0682 Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

…Shri Kamlesh Dhariwal was having sufficient cash out of cash, which was deposited in Bank, and cheque amount was given out of said bank account. Therefore, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/[2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) it Lalchand P Dhariwal v. ITO-Wd-1(2)(30 Surat/ I.T.A.No. 2623/Ahd/2016/A.Y. 12-13 Page 4 of 10 was submitted that the High Court has laid down that when the assessee has primarily discharged the initial onus laid on him in terms of section 68 by providing details to establish genuineness of transaction, ident…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 802/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…e to justify the source of the source of the money received by it. In this connection, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rajesh Malleables Ltd. Asst.Year - 2003-04 DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein it was held as under: “It has also proved the capacity of the creditors by showing that the amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques drawn from bank accounts of the creditors and the assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the a…

Tradelink Carrying Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

ITA 1636/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C-SMC”BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A.T. Varkery, AM ] I.TA No. 1636/Kol/2019 A.Y 2013-14 M/s. Tradelink Carrying Pvt. Ltd Vs. I.T.O., Ward 4(1), Kolkata PAN: AABCT0283A Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 25-11-2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2019 For the Appellant Shri M.D. Shah, Advocate, ld. AR For the Respondent Shri Jayanta Khanna, JCIT, ld.DR ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) , 2, Kolkata dated 24-06-2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the ld…

Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel, Kheda vs. ITO, Ward-2, Nadiad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2329/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2329/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel Ito, Ward-2 At Mahudha Nagarwada Vs Nadiad. Nr.Gujarati School At & Post Mahudha Dist. Kheda. Pan : Awkpp 7005 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69

…on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjahan Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC), which affirmed the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjehan, 123 ITR 3, CIT Vs. Moghul Darbar, 216 ITR 301, DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 and Mitesh Rolling Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 278, it is submitted that additions ought not to have been made. In the submissions, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made reference to the following decisions: CIT Vs. Megha Industries, (103) 7 TaxCorp (DT) 54015 i) (Gujarat); ii) CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar, 294 ITR 78; iii) ITO Vs. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal, ITA No.566…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3741/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5268/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5267/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5266/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…given against the assessee. The conclusion drawn by the A.O. that these are unexplained share capital and premium is wholly unjustified and based on no evidence. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, there…