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

Venu Myneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya, DR
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…sions: a) S. Hastimal Vs CIT (1963) [49 ITR 273] (Mad); b) Tolaram Daga Vs CIT (1966) [59 ITR 632] (Assam.); c) CIT Vs Daulat Ram Ramatmull, (1973) [87 ITR 349] (SC); d) Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (1976) [103, ITR 344] (Pat); e) Rohini Builders (2002) [256 ITR 360] (Guj); f) Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT (2003) [264 ITR 254]; g) CIT Vs HS Builders Pvt Ltd (2012) [254 CTR (Raj) 542]; 3. Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to submit a remand report on the written submissions filed by assessee. With regard to the deposits made on 25-11-2009 and 29-11-2009 in Indian Bank which are claimed to be gifts given by assessee's fat…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5th Floor, 105/106, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. ABDFS0133N राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri V Justin-DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Ass…

Anil Basudevo Beriwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5538/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2012-13 Anil Basudevo Beriwal Vs. ACIT-30(1), M-2, Maganlal Chambers, Devi Galli, Mumbai (Respondent) S.T. Road, Carnac Bunder, Masjid (E), Mumbai 400 009 (Appellant) PAN : AABPB7414Q Appellant by : Shri Dharmesh Shah Respondent by : Ms. Arju Garodia Date of Hearing : 16/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15/06/2018 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 29.07.2016 pertaining…

ITO, WD-6(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Wiz Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1162/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

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…

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gold Finger Establishment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…(MA G.) 3. CIT V/s Divine Leasing etc 299 ITR 268 (Del HC) SLP was also CO No.94/M/2017 M/s. Gold Finger Establishment dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 4. Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. V/s CIT (1987) 168 JTR 493 (Cal HC) 5. Dy CIT V/s Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (CLI]). SLP was also dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 6. Anis Ahmed V/s CIT (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC) 7. CIT V/s U K Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom. HC) 8. Add. CIT V/s 1-lanuman Agarwal (1984) 151 ITR 150 (Patna HC) 9. Jhaver Bhai Bihar Lal & Co. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR (1985] 154 ITR 591/21 Taxman 238 10. CIT vs. Sahibqanj Electric Cables (P)…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the 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. ix. Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj,): - - . 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. x. CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd. 64 DTR 46: In this decision given by the Delhi High Court, it was held that by bringing…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…Ltd. 319 ITR (ST) 5 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) " Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) " CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) 11. It was further submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) have been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following case laws: " CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. 333 ITR 119 " CIT Vs…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…Ltd. 319 ITR (ST) 5 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) " Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) " CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) 11. It was further submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) have been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following case laws: " CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. 333 ITR 119 " CIT Vs…

Pramod Kumar Agarwalla, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.12/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Pramod Kumar Agarwalla, Vs. Ito Angul Ward-Angul Prop: Pramod Trading Co., Shankar Cinema Road, Angul- 759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaxpa 8746 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bandyopadhyay, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 22.08.2016. 2. Ground No.1 Of The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Payment Of Interest To Loan Creditors Rs.8,16,618/- U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tds. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.8,16,618/- By Disallowing Interest U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act For Non- Deduction Of Tax At Source. The Ao Observed That On Growing Through The Ledger Copy Of Unsecured Loan It Was Found That The Amount Of Interest Paid/Credited To The Payee Exceeded The Minimum Amount Not Chargeable To Tax And, Therefore, He Did Not Accept The Explanation Of The Assessee That Since The Assessee Had Collected Form No.15G For Non-Deduction Of Tax From The Payee, Hence, No Tds Was Deducted From The Payments Of Interest Made. According To The Ao Column No.4 Of The Form No.15G Read

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bandyopadhyay, DR
Section 40Section 68

…Therefore, in absence of the same, the addition made u/s.68 of the Act by the AO merely on the basis of suspicion cannot be sustained in law. My view find supports with the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). I, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs.19 lakhs made u/s.68 of the Act and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 13. Grounds No.3,4&5 are general in nature and, hence, require no further adjudication by me. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounce…

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3067/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e with the impugned addition. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete Section 68 addition in question of Rs.l6.251acs. This first substantive ground is partly allowed. Further Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) held that ‘’ if identity of creditors is proved and amounts is received by account payees cheque than initial burden of proving credits stands discharged and such source of credits would not automatically result in deeming amounts as income includible in total income of assessee.’’ We further observe that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court i…

Savitaben Mangaldas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3066/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e with the impugned addition. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete Section 68 addition in question of Rs.l6.251acs. This first substantive ground is partly allowed. Further Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) held that ‘’ if identity of creditors is proved and amounts is received by account payees cheque than initial burden of proving credits stands discharged and such source of credits would not automatically result in deeming amounts as income includible in total income of assessee.’’ We further observe that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court i…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3096/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3094/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3093/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3091/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

ITA 2159/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwanikumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt.Shafali Swaroop, CIT-DR &
Section 153CSection 234ASection 68

…prove source of the source. The assessee-company relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), decision of Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nemi Chand Kothari (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd., 14 ITA.No.2159/Del./2014 M/s. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi. (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of assessee-com…

Yash Developers, Thane vs. DCIT Cir-3, Thane

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

ITA 3767/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act and hence the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition. In support of these contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court given in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360); the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (159 ITR 78). 7. On the other hand learned Departmental Representative has refuted the said contentions and…

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Harsh Dalmia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7459/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…the 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. ix. Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 1[2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Gui.): 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. ix. CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd. 64 DTR 46: In this decision given by the Delhi High Court, it was held that by bringing on…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…ted in 115 ITR 408 (Cal) iii) CIT vs. Shree Gopal & Co. reported in 204 ITR 285 (Guj) iv) CIT vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 394 (Bom) v) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 354 ITR 282 (Del) vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT reported in 264 ITR page 254 (Gauhati). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed earlier as well as the judicial pronouncements cited, I am of the view that addition should not sustain. Ground No.7 of the appeal is allowed.” The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 15. Before…