How many judgments cite DCIT v. Rohini Builders?

489 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Rohini Builders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 132, Section 69A.

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 366,339 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 132 Section 69A Section 148 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source statement under section 132(4)permanent account number addition under section 68 retracted statement paper company share application money genuineness of the transaction addition u/s 68 section 131 section 133(6)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Rohini Builders

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.76/Hyd/2021 & 77/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Shoeb Estates Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aancs8525Q] (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 14.09.2020 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. Shoeb Estates Pvt. Ltd.

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 Commisioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Asma Estates & Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.37/Hyd/2021 To 39/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Asma Estates & Income Tax Investments Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaica2191F] (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 13/02/2025 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

M/S Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6406/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito, Ward 8(3)(1) M/S Tayani Holdings 616, Ayakar Bhavan, 285, Park View Bhiwanji Mk Road, Mumbai Arjan Khimji Marg, 400020. Matunga, Central Railway Mumbai 400019. Pan/Gir No. Aadct3311K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…d 28.12.2017 Assessed Income Rs. 18,25,000/- (addn. u/s.68) 4.6 As immediate sources had been provided and all are bank entries, explanation needs to be appreciated. Kindly appreciate the merits we rely upon: 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders 4 M/s. Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 218 (BOM) Parties being unknown parties and having all assessed to tax and having directly replied to the Assessing Officer, source of the source are explained by the Appellant. If further doubt raised on the funding par…

Amitkumar Agrawal, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.4 is partly allowed

ITA 25/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 25/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Amitkumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of Income- I-2474-75, Millennium Textile Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat, बनाम Market, Ring Road, Room No.213, 2Nd Floor, Vs Surat-395 002 Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. [Pan : Ajtpa 4052 E] New Civil Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…rom lenders. The AO and ld. CIT(A) have not discussed anything about the payment of interest made after deducting TDS. To support his submission, ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, (2012) 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.). 9. On the issue of disallowance of indirect expenses of ad hoc basis, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that expenses incurred by assessee for the purpose of business. The assessee furnished the details, however, Asse…

Sapphire Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2156/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito, Ward 12(3) Sapphire Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 226/1, A.J.C. Bose Road, 3F, Chowringhee Square, Trinity House, Kolkata-700020 Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs7197C Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rama Choudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rama Choudhary, DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…. It cannot, therefore, be said that any question of law arose in these cases. The High Court was, therefore, right in refusing to refer the questions sought for." 09. Similarly, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360, after following the decision of Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:- “"Merely because summons issued to some of the creditors could not be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supr…

Sarvesh Bardia, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 299/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…s 131 and 133(6) of the Act, in the case of the Assessee, where the primary onus under Section 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Del.), had held, that it is not for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the creditors. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that if the A.O was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, then the proper recourse for him was to make additions in the 22 Sarvesh Bardia Vs. ITO-1,…

Achla Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), Delhi

ITA 4252/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

…on factum of repayment of loan amounts during the year and/or in the subsequent period:- i) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Karaj Singh IT Appeal No. 161 of 2005. ii) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 Guj iii) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 306 of 2022 pronounced on 05th July 2022 iv) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ayachi Chndrashekhar Narsangji in Tax Appeal No. 992 of 2013. v) Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO v. M/s. Agripure Tradeware Private Limited in IT…

Nehal Brothers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in respect of the five creditors stand allowed

ITA 2541/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Nehal Brothers, Income Tax Officer-23(2)(1), Ew 4030, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Lalbaugh, Lower Parel, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Mumbai Pan : Aajfm6428R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pande, Sr.DR

Section 68

…is no reason to suspect the amount borrowed by the assessee from the above said creditors. In support ofthe legal proposition, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has discharged its onus placed upon it u/s. 68 of the Act and hence, the AO could not have made addition u/s. 68 of the Act, without disproving the claim of the assessee. 8. The Ld.DR, on the contrary, submitted that it is not proved by the assessee that all the lenders were having money…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Soham Commodities Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1381/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…above view is supported by the ratio laid down in the following decisions of various courts of law: I.T.A No. 1380 & 1381/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Piyush Subodhbhai Jhaveri & Soham Commodities Pvt. Ltd. i) Rohini Builders vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) [SLP of Revenue dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 254 ITR 275 (Statute)]. ii) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). iii) Pr. CIT v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi). iv) PrCIT v. Hi Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 402(Delhi). [SLP of Revenue dismissed b…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Piyush Subodhbhai Jhaveri, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1380/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Shri Lakshmichand Pribhdas Jaisinghani, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271ASection 59ASection 69A

…from purchasers under Section 133(6) to reject the transactions' genuineness is misplaced. - The taxpayer cannot be penalized for third-party non- compliance when sufficient evidence has been furnished. 4. Judicial Precedents - Rohini Builders v. DCIT (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat High Court): - Held that the mere non-response of creditors to Section 133(6) notices does not justify additions if the assessee has provided adequate evidence. - CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (Supreme Court): - Ruled that once the assessee establishes the identity and genuineness of transactions, the onus shifts…

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.87/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dayal Cotspin Ltd. New Radhakishan Plots ……………. Appellant Akola 444 001 PAN – AACCD4041K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Akola Circle, Akola Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 04/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissio…

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…rce. For this jurisprudence we rely upon the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 298 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon‟ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT vs., Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). 1.10. In a recent similar case before Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/S Hindon Forge Ltd Vs DCIT (Del) (Trib) dated 03/12/20, the Hon‟ble tribunal has relied on the case laws relied upon by the assessee and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order is re- produced below. “It is well settled Law th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…the money is sought to be reopened, that would have made some sense but we fail to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of the company itself." 5.11 Further in the case of DCIT Vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj), Hon'ble Court duly approves by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S L.P. (C) No. 515 of 2002 has held 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1(2, Nagpur vs. M/S. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…d the addition based on appreciation of evidence on record and after taking into consideration the ratio of theApex Court decision in case of C.I.T. v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 as well as this High Court in case of D.C.I.T. v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360. It is found from the record that the 18 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 creditors have advanced the monies through bank and placed evidence in this regard on record, are assessed to income tax. In the circumstances, the position in law is well settled that the assessing officer is not satisfied about the capacity or the cre…

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

…the loan taken by the assessee company has also been repaid back within a very short duration. When loan stands repaid no addition under Section 68 can be made. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat), in which it was held was under:- "The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques." 1.22.i The above judgme…

Dalas Biotech Limited, Bhiwadi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 147/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv (Physical)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…the Revenue in ITA Nos. 945/Ahd/2018, 1249/Ahd/2018, 1252/Ahd/2018, 1253/Ahd /2018 1254/Ahd/2018 (for A.Y. 2009-10), ITA No. 457/Ahd/2020, 477/Ahd/2020 and IT(SS)A No. 54/Ahd/2021 (for A.Y.2010-11) are hereby dismissed. In the case of DCIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj), Hon'ble High Court held as under:- "substantial Question of law - Cash Credit Assessee furnished complete addresses of - all the creditors along with GIR numbers /PAN as well as confirmations along with copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of individual creditors, wherever available, and copies of returns filed by' the creditors…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Niyati Sanket Shah, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 723/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

…protected by various case laws, some of them being CIT us. Andaman Timbers, PCIT vs. Kanubhai M. Patel 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj), CIT vs. Indrajit Singh 215 Taxman 58 (Guj), CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhawa, 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj), DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj), CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging P. Ltd. 42 taxmann.com 473 (Guj). 8.3 Another fact which is very important and material in the case is that the appellant has admitted before the AO to have paid sale consideration of Rs.95,77,800/- which is as per the sale deed and having paid land I.T.A No. 723/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 ITO Vs. Niyati…

M/S Toplink Commerce Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

ITA 1413/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

…Tax Act, 1961. It is stated that in the absence of the reasons, the addition made is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: i. Orissa Corpn. (P) ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) for identity of the creditor. ii. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 ITR 195 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (I.T.A. No. 1613 of 2014 dated 20.03.2047) wherein it was held that the proviso to section 68 is effective from A.Υ. 2013-2014 and it does not have retrospective effect. iv. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd…

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…agandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. – [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay)  CIT v. Vacmet Packaging India (P) Ltd.: 367 ITR 217 (All.)  CIT v. Arunanada Textiles P. Ltd: 333 ITR 116 (Kar)  CIT v. Metachem Industries: 245 ITR 160 (MP)  DCIT v. Rohini Builders: 256 ITR 360 (Guj)  CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd.: 215 Taxman 157 (Guj.)(Mag.)  Nemichand Kothari V. CIT: 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati)  CIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd.: 386 ITR 454 (P&H)  CIT v. Pranav Foundations Ltd.: T. C. (A.) NO. 262 OF 2014 (Mad.) 66. The ratio decidendi emanating from the aforesaid decisions may be summarized as under: (i) The assesse…