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, 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 5265/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…

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 5264/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…

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 3746/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 3745/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…

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 3744/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…

Shri Dinesh Laduramji Choudhary, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), ( New Ward-2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1144/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1144/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dinesh Laduramji Vs The Income Tax Officer, Choudhary, 1051-52, Adarsh . Ward-5(1), Surat. Market-2, Ring Road, (New Ward -2(2)(1), Surat) Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Afepc 9017 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 68

…Shri Dinesh Laduramji Choudhary Vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Surat/ITA No.1144/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2009-10 Page 1 of 13 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1144/AHD/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dinesh Laduramji Vs The Income Tax Officer, Choudhary, 1051-52, Adarsh . Ward-5(1), Surat. Market-2, Ring Road, (New Ward -2(2)(1), Surat) Surat – 395 002. [PAN: AFEPC 9017 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Ramesh Malpani – CA…

Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

ITA 153/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 68

…arise only if the address given earlier was erroneous, and not when it was almost identical as held in the case of Ram Kumar Jalan v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 331 (Bom.). 18. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj), has held that mere identification of the source of the creditors even without evidence as to the nature of the income could justify acceptance, where the assessee 18 has given PAN of the creditor and also shows that the amounts were received by account payee cheques. Hon. High Court, in this case, endorsed the findings of the Tribunal t…

Mahipal Ishwarlal Sottany, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 996/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 996/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Mahipal Ishwarlal Sottany, Income Tax Officer- B-120, Shree Ghantakarma Mahavir, Vs. 4(1)(3), Market, Nr. New Cloth Market, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Amdps7616P

Section 68

…ceived in their hands. The assessee is not answerable to justify the source of the source of the money received by him. In this connection, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of 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 Asstt. Year 2012-13 10 deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors…

Navyug Iron Traders, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 553/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…ration Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) would apply. The assessee in these circumstances is able to discharge onus upon it to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. We rely upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) and Gauhati High Court 9 ITA.No.553/Del./2017 M/s. Navyug Iron Traders, Ghaziabad. in the case of Nemichand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati). Since in this case the repayment made by assessee in subsequent year have not been disputed by the Revenue Department, therefore, case of assessee would also be covered by Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat H…

Shreeji Chemical Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bharuch

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

ITA 1729/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1729/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreeji Chemical Industries, V. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate Income Tax 903, Sapphire Complex Circle-2, Bharuch-394116. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009. [Pan: Aajfs 6791 D] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)

…or no inquiry made to prove that transaction is bogus/ sham and accommodation entries to reduce tax liability. Since all these evidences were filed which supports the confirmation. Learned Counsel also cited some case laws like DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) and CIT v. Hindustan Development Corpn Ltd. [1998] 101 Taxman 146 (Cal) and Aluminum Corporation of India Limited v CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned D.R. supporting the orders of lower authorities submitted that the assessee has failed to provide any documentary evidence of services…

Aanya Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2069/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44Section 44ASection 68

…06-2014 by cheque no. 096397 52 Viral N Patel 10,000 0 31/08/2013 10,000 Repaid in cash - 1,79,10,000 3,06,701 8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon large number of decisions, which have been noticed by the ld.CIT(A) viz. DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360, CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P.Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT Vs. Shri Mahavir Crimpers, Tax Appeal No.547 of 208, CIT Vs. Chanakya Developers, 3 taxmann.com 91 (Guj), CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj) etc. On the strength of these details and decisions, he submitted that the assessee has discharged the onus put upon it by vi…

Champ Info Software, Noida vs. Prcit, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…missible in the eyes of the law subject to the restrictions imposed by the Income Tax Act regarding limitation etc. The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 where in it had been held as under: "7. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through order passed by the Assessing Officer, the relevant portion of which we have also extracted in para 2 above. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) more or less confirmed the addition on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer in t…

Lakshya Educational Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4128/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

…loan is received and refunded back the. banking channel — Can‟t be added in the hands of assessee u/s 68: CIT V Rahul Vineet Traders[2014] 41 taxmann.com 86 (All) 01-03 CIT V Kapoor Chand Mangesh Chand[2013]38 taxmann.com 239 (AIL) 04-05 CIT v ABT ITD. (2015)370 ITR 159 (Madras) 06-06 B. Where loan is supported with confirmation/ITR/address and loan is received th. banking channel and no cash is deposited in depositor a/c—Onus discharged. AO may add in the hands of depositor or has to conduct enquiry to bring material to reject loan CIT V Shalimar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 285 (All) 07-09 CIT VSU…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…Hanuman Aggarwal x. 154 ITR 244 at 247 (Pat) Addl CIT v Bahri Bros. (P) Lt xi. 264 ITR 254 at 261-266 (Gau) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT xii. 280 ITR 512 at 518 (Guj) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT xiii. [2008] 219 CTR (Raj.) 571 at 577 Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO xiv. 256 ITR 360 at 369 (Guj) DCIT Vs Rohini Builders It is necessary to state that these loans are interest bearing loan and AO has also noticed that part of the same has been returned and interest has been credited and confirmation of the same was also filed before the learned AO. The AO himself has accepted the identity and creditworthiness. As regards to gen…

The ITO, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Anubhuti Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2032/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2032/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11) Ito M/S. Anubhuti बनाम/ Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Wd-1(1)(2), Vs. 1A, Dipawali Center, Ahmedabad Opp. Old High Court, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaf Ca3 181 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: 04/04/2019
Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER &SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2032/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11) ITO M/s. Anubhuti बनाम/ Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Wd-1(1)(2), Vs. 1A, Dipawali Center, Ahmedabad Opp. Old High Court, Income-tax, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAF CA3 181 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Mudit Nagpal, Sr. DR अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Aseem L. Thakkar, AR ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondentby: 04/04/2019 सुनवाईक…

Kanchan Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Jalpaiguri

ITA 2411/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini Am]

Section 133(6)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…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Savitri Share and Securities Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1703/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Mumbai vs. Span Venture, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4446/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikanat C. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d, ITA No.6729/MUM/2016. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Bom HC (ITA -1613 of 2014). 5. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports 2016 CTR 195 (SC). 6. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 Gujarat HC 7. Rohini Builders vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Ahmedabad (2001) 117 Taxmann 25. 8. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt Ltd. Bombay 8. HC, ITA -819 of 2015. 9. Income Tax Officer 9 (1) - 1 vs. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd, (2012) 20 Taxmann 153 Mumbai ITAT 10. Shri Naresh Hiran vs. Income Tax Office…

Smt. Shital R. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3136/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt. Shital R Shah Ito बनाम/ B/508, Krishna Tower, Ward- 7(2)(5), Vs. Opp. Priya Cinema, Nature View Building, Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad Krishnangar, Ahmedabad- 382345 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bek Ps2 377 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234CSection 68

…s that assessee has not proved source of such persons to provide loans to the assessee. • S. 68 does not require an assessee to prove source of the source of deposits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s. 68. Reliance is placed on: " DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) " Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • Having furnished the aforesaid details, the concerned credits, by no stretch of imagination, remain unexplained any further in the assessee’s hands. • AO and CIT(A) have, rather th…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amba Township Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1361/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri
Section 68

…nce has been accepted. 13.3 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.” 13.4 Thus there remains no doubt tha…