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

Satluj Shiksha Samiti, Haryana vs. ACIT, Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. V.M. Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…570(SC) • Nabadwip Chandra Roy v/s CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam). • Tolaram Daga v/s CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam). • Anand Prakash Agarwal vIs ACIT ( 2008) 6 DTR (All) (Trib) 191. • Radheshyam vIs Safiyabai Ibrahim AIR 1988 Born 361 • Rohini Builders 182 CTR 373 (Guj) 5. The list of 177 persons PB Pg 88-94/1-350 by whom the loan were provided during the assessment proceedings with detailed confirmation with name of persons, father's name, addresses, date of amount received, amount, date of repayment and detail regarding their profession were provided alongwith their identification, address proof in…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Champalal D. Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…ture of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipt's are of an assessable nature [A. Govindarajulu Mudallar v. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC)] 7.3.10 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. 7.3.11 In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevi Khadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom) the Hon. Bombay HC held that wh…

The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Hotel Sea View Pvt. Ltd., Nani Daman

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 1615/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ort. In such a scenario, AO could not have added the impugned sum in assessee's hands. Section 68 doesn't 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) ACIT vs. Hotel Sea view Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2007-08 In our considered opinion, in light of the above, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition. 4.4 So far deleting addition…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Elbee Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 456/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…has, in my opinion, discharged its onus regarding the unsecured loans and the same cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit, This view is further supported by various decisions cited by the appellant, including those in the cases of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) and Nemichand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau.). The addition made u/s 68 is accordingly deleted. As a logical consequence, the disallowance of Rs.6,66,827/- in respect of interest on the same is also deleted.” 3.2. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. And we fully agree with the factual finding recorded b…

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Bela Suresh Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 26/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Ito, M/S. Bela Suresh Agarwal, Office Of The Ito 25(2)(2), Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd R.No.507, C-10, 5Th Floor, Service Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Near Airport, Bandra Kurla Compled, W.E. Highway, Bandra (E), Vile Parle East, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 57 Pan: Ackpa0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.A. Khan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan, D.R
Section 132Section 148Section 68

…paid within one and a half year through banking channel. Therefore, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) is justified in his order. 8. I find that this case is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360 wherein it is held as under: “The decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs Rohini Builders - [256 ITR 360] is held that all the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and the repayment of loans have also been made by account payee cheques along with interest in relation to those loans and that the…

ITO 25(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vikram Muktilal Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito 25(3)(5), Vs. M/S. Vikram Muktilal Vora, Mumbai – 400 051 702/703, Kshem Kalyan Building, Sanyas Ahram, B.S.Road, Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aaapv4747P Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 131Section 144Section 148Section 68

…the assessment proceedings. The source of receipt through banking channel clearly establish the genuineness of the credit which is reflected in the books of accounts.' The decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs Rohini Builders - [256 ITR 360] is held that ell the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and the repayment of loans have also been made by account payee cheques along with interest in relation to those loans and that the assessing officer having allowed the interest claimed/paid by the assessee in relation to the cash credits cannot treat the cash cred…

Shri Sachin Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4577/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, CA & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…'s explanation about the source where from they acquired the money is not acceptable to the Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that the deposit made by such creditor is the money of the assessee himself. There is no warrant for such presumption." b) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders "Thus it is clear that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lays on it terms of section 68 by proving the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR numbers/permanent accounts numbers and the copies of assessment orders wherever readily available. It has also proved the cap…

Pck Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.259/Mum/2015,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 M/S. Pck Metals Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-13, बनाम Shop No.1, Kushal Bhavan, Mumbai. 65, 5Th Kumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aadcp8553Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Anukrishan Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Ms. AnuKrishan Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 53Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “tstststs” खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - ‘J’ BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं iou iou iou "संह,"या"यक सद"य iou Before S/Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.259/Mum/2015,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 M/s. PCK Metals Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, CC-13, बनाम Shop No.1, Kushal Bhavan, Mumbai. 65, 5th Kumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai-400004 PAN: AADCP8553Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Naresh Kumar राज"व ओर से / Revenue by : Ms. AnuKrishan Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 02-…

Kainya & Associates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6300/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6300/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Morya Pratap, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…plication money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company u/s 68 iii CIT V K.C.Pipes Pvt Ltd. 2016 386 ITR 532 (P & H High Court to contend that no addition is warranted when shares are actually allotted) iv DCIT Vs Rohini Builders 2002 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat High court to contend that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source. The onus of assessee was duly discharged after furnishing all the primary evidences to prove the genuiness of loan transactions. v. Umang Travels & Tradelinks Pvt Ltd V ITO (ITA No. 3571/M/2012 Mumbai Tribunal order dated 08/07/2015) & vi. M/s Orchid I…

Smt. Preeti Garg, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2184/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…rat); Sagalchand P. Ananda vs. ACIT (ITA No. 80/Rjt/2013) ITAT- Rajkot); Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guwahat); CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); Gurukul Trust vs. ADIT vs (ITA No. 723/Del/2012) ITAT- Delhi; DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) and power of attorney (in original), which were not properly considered by the authorities below. I further find that Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the non- speaking impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO to decide the…

Sunil Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1397/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriA.K.Tibrewal–FCAFor Respondent: ShriSnehanshu Biswas-JCIT-SR DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…its Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established.” (ii) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held:- “ 13…we have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the 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 Assess…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Limited (1986) 159 ITR 78(SC) and submitted that once loan confirmations are filed , the burden of the assessee is discharged. The assessee submitted that the sources of loan stood explained. The assessee relied upon decision of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360(Guj. HC), CIT v. ABT Limited (2015) 370 ITR 159(Mad.HC), CIT v. Kapoor Chand Magnesh Chand(2003) 218 Taxman 157(Mag.)(All. HC) , CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 232(Cal. HC), CIT v. Smt Sanghamita Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481(Gau. HC), CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217(Raj. HC), CIT v. Nemichand Kothari (20…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Limited (1986) 159 ITR 78(SC) and submitted that once loan confirmations are filed , the burden of the assessee is discharged. The assessee submitted that the sources of loan stood explained. The assessee relied upon decision of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360(Guj. HC), CIT v. ABT Limited (2015) 370 ITR 159(Mad.HC), CIT v. Kapoor Chand Magnesh Chand(2003) 218 Taxman 157(Mag.)(All. HC) , CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 232(Cal. HC), CIT v. Smt Sanghamita Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481(Gau. HC), CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217(Raj. HC), CIT v. Nemichand Kothari (20…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) d) ITA No. 1583/Del/2011 AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case of DCIT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. 5 i) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT ii) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO e) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…rough the account payee cheques makes a question of identity of creditors for into oblivion and it becomes absolutely irrelevant. 8.2 The Ld. counsel further relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360, wherein 7 AY: 2011-12 it is held that burden under section 68 of the Act stands discharged by proving the identity of the creditors by giving complete address and permanent account number, submitted that in the case in hand entire money originated from the bank account of the creditor parties, who are fully identifiable and have also confirmed…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5334/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…llar Investment Ltd. 164 CTR 287 ( SC) CIT v/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 6 DTR 308) CIT v/s Gujrath Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (S.C.) In Honble High Court CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay.) CIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Saraogi Credit Corporation vis CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) CIT v/s Misra Preservers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 222 (All) 14 ITA No.5332-5334/14 & CO No.40/16 CIT v/s Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 350 ITR 220 (All) CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech P. Ltd .. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v/s K.C.Fibres Ltd 332 ITR 481 (…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5333/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…llar Investment Ltd. 164 CTR 287 ( SC) CIT v/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 6 DTR 308) CIT v/s Gujrath Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (S.C.) In Honble High Court CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay.) CIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Saraogi Credit Corporation vis CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) CIT v/s Misra Preservers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 222 (All) 14 ITA No.5332-5334/14 & CO No.40/16 CIT v/s Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 350 ITR 220 (All) CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech P. Ltd .. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v/s K.C.Fibres Ltd 332 ITR 481 (…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5332/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…llar Investment Ltd. 164 CTR 287 ( SC) CIT v/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 6 DTR 308) CIT v/s Gujrath Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (S.C.) In Honble High Court CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay.) CIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Saraogi Credit Corporation vis CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) CIT v/s Misra Preservers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 222 (All) 14 ITA No.5332-5334/14 & CO No.40/16 CIT v/s Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 350 ITR 220 (All) CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech P. Ltd .. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v/s K.C.Fibres Ltd 332 ITR 481 (…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…way of account payee cheques-No question of law arises. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation, 103 ITR 344, decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case of CIT - Divine Lasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…way of account payee cheques-No question of law arises. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation, 103 ITR 344, decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case of CIT - Divine Lasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268…