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 366,314 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

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 57/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…tting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support. The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT (A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi Hig…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 56/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…tting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support. The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT (A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi Hig…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 55/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…tting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support. The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT (A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi Hig…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 54/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…tting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support. The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT (A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi Hig…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 53/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…tting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support. The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT (A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi Hig…

Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

….; A.Y. 2009-10 payee cheques. 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad vs. Aarthik Greentech Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 70/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी. सं/Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad (Appellant) Vs. M/S Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad (Appellant) Vs. M/S Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement: 2

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

ITA 69/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

ITA 68/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

ITA 67/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Zainab Investments Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

ITA 111/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderbad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zara Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 65/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.64/Hyd/2021 & 65/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zara Investments Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. Zara Investments Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Neelaraj Vinoth, Perambalur vs. ACIT, CC-2, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

…ntemplated by the AO in the case of the creditors, there can be no case to treat the bid amount as unexplained money in the hands of the Appellant. In this regard the decision of the Hon'ble Guiarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/[2003] 127 Taxman 523, is relied upon, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Neelaraj Vinoth, Perambalur

ITA 1982/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate Department By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

…ntemplated by the AO in the case of the creditors, there can be no case to treat the bid amount as unexplained money in the hands of the Appellant. In this regard the decision of the Hon'ble Guiarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/[2003] 127 Taxman 523, is relied upon, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stads 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 c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Aijaz Investments &Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 80/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2021 To 80/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Aijaz Investments Income Tax & Estates Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaica2190E] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 17/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Aijaz Investments & Estates Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 79/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2021 To 80/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Aijaz Investments Income Tax & Estates Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaica2190E] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 17/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Aijaz Investments & Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 78/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2021 To 80/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Aijaz Investments Income Tax & Estates Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaica2190E] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 17/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…tions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). The sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing Officer referred t…