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 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

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…y and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 17. The Ld. D.R wh…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…y and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 17. The Ld. D.R wh…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…y and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 17. The Ld. D.R wh…

Malvi and Co., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 658/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 155BSection 68

…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 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repa…

Aabhushan, Dhamnod, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…It is also well settled Law assessee need not to prove the source of the source. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of (1) Dwarakadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) (2) Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 Taxman 523/[2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guil) and Zafa Ahmed & Co. v. CIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 267/214 Taxman 440 (All). It Page 40 of 53 ITANo.344/Ind/2023 Abhushan may also be noted here that the ITAT restored the appeals of assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011. In A.Y. 2010-2011 the same Ld. CIT(A) passed the Order on 6-7-2020 and on production…

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…y and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 6. The Ld. D.R w…

Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 1St Floor, 134/1, M.G. Road, Vs Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. Pan: Aaccn 8291 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 19.07.2023 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. Issue Raised In Ground No. 2 To 5 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of Ao Wherein The Ao Has Made Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- On Account Of Share Capital / Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: “1. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3. Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom)” Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 6. The Ld. D.R wh…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Starlight System (I) LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2167/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, C.Circle-3(4), Vs. Starlight System (I) Roomno1915,19Th Floor, Llp, 5Th Floor Sunteck Air India Bldg, Centre 37-40, Nariman Point, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400021. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Acifs0005M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr.Kishore Dhule.CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri.Gaurav Kabra.AR
Section 68

…prove source of the source. 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.). The A.O. has also accepted that entries in the account of the creditors are through RTGS. Therefore, there should not be any doubt on the explanation of the assessee. The A.O. noted that in assessment year under appeal assessee has shown unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.2.79 crores but made only small addition. The return of income decla…

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1035/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Inder Paul Bansal &For Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 68

…ositors is made by account payee cheques. These observations are contained in para 7 and law in this regard is explained in para 8 and 8.1 of the order of the Tribunal and this decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in (2002) 256 ITR 360. It can be seen that in the present case the assessee has made the repayments through banking channels only which are duly described in the bank accounts of the assessee. In this regard the assessee is also placing reliance on the following decisions : a. JCIT Vs M/s. Shalimar Housing & Finance Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 4079/Mum/2019. b. DCIT Vs Shri A…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1549/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. AR & Sh. ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…e taken in case of creditor and not in case of appellant. Explanation about 'source of source' or 'origins of origin' cannot be asked from the appellant while making inquiry under section 68 as per ratio laid down in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj): "Mere identification of the source of the creditors even without evidence as to the nature of the income could justify acceptance, where the assesseee has given the GIR number / PAN of the creditor and also shows that the amounts were received by account payee cheques. It was further held that it is not necessary, that there should be an e…

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Munni Entertainment P. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3763/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 68

…Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) d) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT [1963] 50 TTR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1997] 107 ITR (SC) e) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) f) Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut Vs Avant Grade Carpets Ltd. IT Appeal No. 141 of 2014 August 11, 2014 High Court of Allahabad. Above cited case laws also strengthens the case of the appellant. Therefore, in view of the fact that the appellant has discharged the initial burden of prove das required u/s 68 of the Act and AO has not subs…

ITO, Ward- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saivi Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ng 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 ITA NO.1722/Del/2011 (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…

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court has further stressed the usage of word "may" in section 68 of the Act. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy CIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 had dealt with a similar case and has taken note of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orrisa Corporation (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Orient Trading Co. Ltd V CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) were taken note by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy CIT vs Rohini Builders (supr…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…e assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary ruling are as under:-  Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.)  CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC)  CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). h. It is also settled law that it is mandatory for the AO to confront the assessee with any material collected by the AO at the back of the assessee, and in case of statement of third party recorded at the back of the assessee, opportunity of cross examination has to be offered to the assessee, failing which the said material/statement et…

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. JR Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम / National Faceless Appeal Vs. ACIT-Circle-4(3)(1) Centre Room No. 649, M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACJ6312K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 24/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/01…

Parshotambhai Naranbhai Gevariya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 569/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…bmitted that the said Kanungo Financers Ltd. is a public listed and the findings of the Assessing Officer that it does not exist is not justifiable. The ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360. The ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44. The assessee has given all the details to establish the said loan and the investment of the said loan as well and therefore the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily rejected the explanation of the asses…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 417/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 417/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Income Tax Officer, M/S Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Satkar Complex, Ahmedabad. Off C.G Road, Near Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aabca9995Q

For Appellant: Shri S.N Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT.D.R
Section 132(4)Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 417/AHD/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Income Tax Officer, M/s Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Satkar Complex, Ahmedabad. Off C.G Road, Near lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad-380006. PAN: AABCA9995Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT.D.R Assessee by : Shri S.N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/12/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 10…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 121/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

…121/SRT/2021 Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad Further, the deletions of these additions have been found covered by the following binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the following case laws: i) CIT V/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 ii) CIT V/s Ranchodbhai Jivabhai Nakhare 208 Taxmann 35 (Guj) iii) CIT V/s Pankaj Enka in ITA No. 967 (215 dated 05.01.2016) iv) PCIT-1 v/s Ridhi Sidhi Corporation in ITA No. 69 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018 45. Therefore, considering the facts of the assessee`s case and case law relied on by the ld CIT(A), we note that ld CIT(A) has passed reasoned a…

Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir., -1(2), Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 118/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

…121/SRT/2021 Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad Further, the deletions of these additions have been found covered by the following binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the following case laws: i) CIT V/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 ii) CIT V/s Ranchodbhai Jivabhai Nakhare 208 Taxmann 35 (Guj) iii) CIT V/s Pankaj Enka in ITA No. 967 (215 dated 05.01.2016) iv) PCIT-1 v/s Ridhi Sidhi Corporation in ITA No. 69 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018 45. Therefore, considering the facts of the assessee`s case and case law relied on by the ld CIT(A), we note that ld CIT(A) has passed reasoned a…

Jayem Realty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

ITA 2216/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…he assessee relied on certain judicial pronouncements including CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2009) 183 Taxman 277(Delhi), CIT vs. Prarmeshwar Bohra, [(2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj)], Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj HC), CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd vs 394 ITR 680 (Bom), CIT vs. Apeak Infotech 88 Taxmann.com 695 (Bom HC), ITO VIS Arogya Bharti Health Park Pvt Ltd ITA No.2943/ Mum/2014. Etc. Page No. 5 Jayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. Pr.CIT rejected the submissions of the assessee with th…