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 366,005 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

M/S. Apex Construction, Kheda vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Sunit Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 1496/AHD/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Apex Construction 8/B, V/S Asstt. Commissioner of Triveni Park Society Opp. Income Tax, Kheda Circle, Bus Steand Kapadwanj Nadiad Dist. Kheda-387620 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAEFA 1295P Appellant by : Shri Sunit Talati, AR Respondent by : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 12 -11-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 29 -11-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal by the…

ITO, WD-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tritium Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 68

…pital as bogus is unwarranted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) , wherein it was held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account, the credit appears) stands fully discharged, if the identity of the creditor is establishd 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, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1762/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 68

…the regards the issue of non- appearance of the share applicants, we note that 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…

Abn Tower & Transmission Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Sridev Enterprises reported in 192 ITR 165 (Kar). We find that the reliance placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) is very well founded. We also find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs J.J.Development (P) Ltd reported in 2016 (6) TMI 804 – Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 519/2008 dated 16.6.2016 had adjudicated the very same issue under dispute before us. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Jurisidictional High Court are…

Anju Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

…d law that assessee is not required to prove sources of the source. We, rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 and decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders Ltd. 256 ITR 360. It may be noted here that it is a case of interest bearing loan taken by the assessee and there is nothing illogical and there is no material found during the course of search or any adverse statement against the assessee about the loan as explained above. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated…

The ITO, Ward 3(3), Surat vs. Shri Birndrakumar D. Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1694/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: C.M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

Section 68

…addition of Rs.22,10,000 on the ground that the AO did not make any inquiry and brought on record any cogent evidence to establish that the loan taken by the Appellant were not genuine. The ld. CIT (A) has 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 68 by providing details to ITO, Wd-3 (3), Surat v. Birendrakumar D. Agarwal/I.T.A. No. 1694 & 1660/Ahd/2013/A.Y.: 2009-10 Page 3 of 14 establish genuineness of transactio…

Shri Birendrakumar D. Agarwal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, 3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1660/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: C.M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

Section 68

…addition of Rs.22,10,000 on the ground that the AO did not make any inquiry and brought on record any cogent evidence to establish that the loan taken by the Appellant were not genuine. The ld. CIT (A) has 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 68 by providing details to ITO, Wd-3 (3), Surat v. Birendrakumar D. Agarwal/I.T.A. No. 1694 & 1660/Ahd/2013/A.Y.: 2009-10 Page 3 of 14 establish genuineness of transactio…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

…cross examination of them to rebut the Dept. conclusions. It is further submitted that the assessee is not to prove the sources of the source as held by the following Courts, (1)Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh.) (2)Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (3) CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) In the case of NEMI CHAND KOTHARI v. C.LT. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) it was held by the Gauhati High Court as under: "A person may have funds from any source and an assessee, on such information received, may take a loan from such a person. It is not the business of the ass…

Manish Maheshwari, Gwalior vs. JCIT Range-2, Gwalior

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

…nt submitted. Amount has been advanced out of salary savings. The Identity of the Kaushal Kishore Shrivastava has been establish and the creditor has confirmed the loan, addition was not justify. Reliance is placed on following cases: DCIT V/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujrat) CIT V/s HeeralalChaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Rajasthan) NemichandKothar V/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gawhati)" 6. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned order. 7. Heard. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has filed the income tax return and bank statement before the CIT(A) in the form 6 of additional evidence which was not admitted, statin…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…law that assessee is not required to prove sources of the source. We, rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 and decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders Ltd. 256 ITR 360. It may be noted here that it is a case of interest bearing loan taken by the assessee and there is nothing illogical and there is no material found during the course of search or any adverse statement against the assessee about the loan as explained above. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…rs and sub-creditors, he ought to have given sufficient time to the notices to produce the relevant material before him. These were aspects which the Tribunal did not examine.” 9.1. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (HC) held as under : “The assessee was a firm engaged in the business of dealings in land. During the assessment year under consideration the assessee had taken loans from various parties and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the loan confirmations giving full addresses, GIR numbers/permanent account…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…roposition, he placed reliance on the following case laws:-  CIT Vs. Varinder Rawlley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H)  CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj)  CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del)  DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 9. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished the financial statements and proved the source of the cash credits. He submitted that in the following cases, it has been held that the source of sources need not be proved by the assessee:- 5 Chandraprakash Paharia  Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT and Ors. (2003) 264 ITR 254  CIT Vs. Smt. S…

ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1768/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.D. Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…pital as bogus is unwarranted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) , wherein it was held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account, the credit appears) stands fully discharged, if the identity of the creditor is establishd 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…

M/S Anjani Associates, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

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

ITA 27/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 68

…nd that of the creditors’ source of income i.e. the sub-creditors. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Metachem Industries, (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP). (ii) CIT vs. Abdul Aziz, (2012) 251 CTR 58 (C.G.). (iii) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). (iv) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal, (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.). (v) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.). (vi) ITO vs. Shri Koushal Agarwal, ITA No.220/BLPR/2010 (ITAT Raipur). (vi) ITO vs. Gauram Prasad Nishad, ITA No.101/BLPR/2012 (ITAT Raipur). (viii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, 208 taxmann.com 35. 12. He according…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…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. 21 M/s. Jainam Investments 6.3.22 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 wh…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilip Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7079/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Virendar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya
Section 132

…es (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 vide order dated 02.09.2015); 3) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC); 4) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); 5) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); 6) Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj); 7) CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevikhadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom); 8) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd. [2012] 51 SOT 234; 9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Samtelcolor Ltd. 64 DTR 46; and 13) Nem…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…in the assessment order. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 for the proposition that if the loan is received by cheque, then the onus upon the assessee is said to be discharged and, therefore, it could not be said, in the present case, that proper enquiry was not made. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83for the pro…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…in the assessment order. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 for the proposition that if the loan is received by cheque, then the onus upon the assessee is said to be discharged and, therefore, it could not be said, in the present case, that proper enquiry was not made. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83for the pro…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhakti Homes P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1233/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit-15(1)(2), M/S Bhakti Homes Pvt. Ltd. Room No.483,A, 4Th Floor, 301, Sitaram Kutir, Plot No. 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Sector-21, Nerul, Road, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400706 Pan: Aaccb6937C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri T.A. Khan (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi With Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri T.A. Khan (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi with Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke (AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(4)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…for the assessee. However, the ld AR for the assessee has relied upon the following decision; 1 CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. (ITA No. 1613 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017. 2 CIT vs. Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 3 DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 Gujarat HC. 4 Rohini Builders vs. DYCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad (2001) 117 Taxmann 25. 5 PCIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 819 of 2015 (Bom HC). 6 ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann 153 Mumbai ITAT. 7 Shri Naresh Hiran vs. ITO (ITA No. 1236/Mum/2017 (Mum ITAT). 8 ACIT vs. H K Pujara Builders, (ITA No. 1056/Mum/2016 (Mum ITAT). 9 I…

The ITO, Ward - 3(2)(2), Surat vs. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 585/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: 2. Ground No. 1 to 4 states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

…gement of return of income, PAN, copy of balance sheet, capital account, copy of bank accounts. The assessee has also placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC)/ 25 Taxman 80(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR 444 (MP): [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP), Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254/ 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati), CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331(Raj.) in support of his contentions. In view of…