DCIT v. Rohini Builders

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

…s had deposited funds in other bank accounts of the assessee which were accepted by the AO. It was further observed that purchases and sales with such parties were accepted. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360), the CIT(A) held that assessee had discharged its burden under section 68/69A and deleted the addition to this extent. 13. In respect of addition u/s 68/69A relating to A.Y. 2014-15, the AO made an addition of Rs.88,66,48,200/- on the basis of deposits in the Society’s account. The assessee submitted that the actual deposits were Rs.77,23,98,23…

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

…s had deposited funds in other bank accounts of the assessee which were accepted by the AO. It was further observed that purchases and sales with such parties were accepted. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360), the CIT(A) held that assessee had discharged its burden under section 68/69A and deleted the addition to this extent. 13. In respect of addition u/s 68/69A relating to A.Y. 2014-15, the AO made an addition of Rs.88,66,48,200/- on the basis of deposits in the Society’s account. The assessee submitted that the actual deposits were Rs.77,23,98,23…

Navin Motors & Estate, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

…ts on department and it is the department who shall make inquiry into cash/credit entries in the bank account of the lenders. Reliance is placed on the following: i) CIT v. Orissa Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. - [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) DCIT v. Rohini Builders - [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) In view of the above, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the addition of Rs. 53,33,410/- u/s. 68 of the Act w.r.t. unsecured loan received from Shri Ubhay Shah deserves to be deleted. 6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on recor…

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shani Prahladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby

…d Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxтапп.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

Parth Dinesh Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी टी.आर. से""ल कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम#। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, v/s. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: BWRPP 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respon…

Mohammed Saleem Abdulkader Kajalwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

…found on facts that the amount of loan received by the assessee was returned to the loan party during the year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channel The ITAT on the decision of CIT v. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj), held in favour of the assessee. 4. On facts therefore, having perused the orders under challenge, we are of the opinion that no error of law committed by the Ld. ITAT. In the case of Rohini Builders (supra), the Court held as under: “We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the order passed by the Assessing Offic…