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

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

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05
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…

Parmanand K Hinduja, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ion Company,19 TTJ 467 viii) ITO v. Sikkanthan Stores, 7 TTJ 294 (Mad.) ix) Champaklal Dhamanwala HUF v. ITO, 34 ITD 209 (Ahm.) x) Atmaram J. Manghirmalani HUF v. ITO, 67 ITD 289 (Mum) xi) J.S. Hastimal v. CIT, 49 ITR 273 (Madras) xii) Rohini Builders v. DCIT 256 ITR 360 xiii) Dimco Silk Mills v. ITO, ITAT Ahd. Bench xiv) Micro land v. ACIT 67 ITD 446 (Bangalore) xv) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) xvi) Kalwa Devadettam v. Union of India, 49 ITR 165 (SC) xvii) ACIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) xviii) CIT v. Bedi & Company Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC) xix) Kirloskar Investment and Finance…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3377/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, Central Circle-13, New Delhi A-1/36, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (Pan:Afypp9110K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…action is bogus. Hence, credit of Rs. 1,20,82,273/-. (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 6,07,00,000/- by the Ld. AO) from M/s Arlington Impex Pvt. Ltd. stands duly explained. vi) Reliance is also placed on the following case laws: - a) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) "Tribunal having deleted the addition uls 68 accepting the genuineness of loans which were received and repaid by assessee by Alc payee cheques, assessee having established the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR nos./PAN as well as confirmations alongwith the copies of their assessment orders wherever readily…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/341/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c)

…e the revenue was insisting on gathering source of the source from the assessee. In that view of the matter, decision of this Court relied upon by the counsel for the assessee in case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and in case of Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2006] 280 ITR 512 would have no applicability. 3. We may notice that the Tribunal and the (9 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] revenue authorities relied on the decision of Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala reported i…

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

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

ITA 1542/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Peeyush Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR
Section 68

…kliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj) (ii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del) (iii) Mod Creation (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (x) Dwarikadhish Sugar Industries vs. ITO 149 TTJ 401 (TM) In view of the above submissions, the ld. AR pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the ground taken in t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…alse and by bringing new material on record and failure to do so would vitiate the addition made on this count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 7 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwa…

ACIT, Circle - 3, Asansol vs. M/S. Sanjay Transport Agency, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1627/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Debasish Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Sarana, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed these unsecured loans of Rs.7.5 lacs to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who deleted the addition by relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of DCIT v Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 7. We find from the above facts that both the creditors have confirmed the transaction and also filed details of their assessment particulars and these credits are given out of their bank account but the AO did not carry out any exercise whatsoever to verify these unsecured loans as is clearly evidenced from the assessment order. Even CIT(…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Shri. G. Balraj, Mangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri G.Balraj, Pwd Contractor, 6-112-81, Nethravathi Nagar Layout, Naagori, Kankanady, Mangalore-575002. … Respondent Pan:Abzpb5464B

For Appellant: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40

…be summoned, it does not lead to an inference that the identity of the said persons is not proved: i. Prakash Leasing Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179(Kar), ii. CIT vs. Punjab Leasing (P) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 24(P&H) and iii. DCIT vs. Rohini Builderls (2002) 256 ITR 360)(Guj.) 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the notices sent by the AO were returned unserved. As held by the Hon’ble High Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, merely Shri G.Balaraj. Page 5 of 7 because the notices have been returned unserved, it cannot be presu…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN