How many judgments cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT?

477 judgments on BharatTax cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (107 ITR 938), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE, Section 69A.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

107 ITR 938Supreme Court of India1977#147 most cited

What is Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT authority for?

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

477

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT · Section 68 · assessee onus of proof · cash credits · genuineness of transaction · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · additions to income · unexplained money · Section 143(3) · Section 147

Also reported as

2 SCC 378

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 148 Section 144

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source share capital and share premium preponderance of probability section 31 paper company addition u/s 68 survey under section 133a addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd

ITTA/94/2022HC Telangana24 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Mohamed Thajudeen Abuthahir, Sirkali Chennai vs. ITO Ward 2, Nagapattinam Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 650/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 650/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Thajudeen Abuthahir, The Income Tax Officer, 17, Railway Road, V. Ward-2, Sirkali – 609 110. Nagapattinam. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Afdpa-4979-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 1Section 69A

…such deposit leading to reason to believe' that income otherwise chargeable to tax had escaped assessment; SLP filed against High Court's judgment dismissed as COME DEPARTMER withdrawn. 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1992] 2 SCC 378 wherein it was held that If the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. 1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arun Malhotra (2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/(2014] 363 ITR 195 (Delhi wherein it was held…

Principal Comnr. of Income Tax, Sambalpur Range vs. M/S. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd

ITA/96/2022HC Orissa17 Aug 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…ITO Vs. Skyjet Aviation (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Ahd-TM) 71 ITD 95, CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, Oriental Wire Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 131 ITR 688, Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, 14 Lokenath Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re- rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481.”…

The Income Tax Officer, Samba vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Samba

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

…is authorized representative were corrupt. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in-law in deleting the addition of Rs31.35,200/-on account of unexplained credits even though judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of case of Roshan Di Haiti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) clearly I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 lays down that the onus of providing the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. It had further held that where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it e of money or other property,…

Pinky Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…f “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and“Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invo…

M/S. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

M/S. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

Subhdhan Financial Advisory Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2198/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Private Limited Vs C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aamcs7818P] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(A) 15, Kolkata Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, Erred In Confirming The Action Of Income-Tax Officer Adding A Sum Of Rs.72,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The I T Act 1961. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invo…

Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2286/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"यएवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [PAN: AABCR2034B] vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. S…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

Kalyan Sahai Gurjar, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 195/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 195/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Kalyan Sahai Gurjar S/o Surja Ram Gurjar Bhojera, Virat Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT(A) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALMPG 1989 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 147

…e fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). This onus on the taxpayer has neither been discharged at the assessment stage nor at the appellate stage. 5.4 Therefore, in view of the above, the grounds no. 1 & 2 of appellant are dismissed. 6. Ground no. 3 raised by the appellant is related to total addition of Rs.4,69,950/- shown as Income from non-speculative business in the Income T…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad

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

ITA 178/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

…ITA Nos 158 and 178 of 2022 Sunil Kumar Ahuja आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 1(1) PAN:ABLPA2822L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja Central Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:ABLPA2822L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR) Date of he…

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 158/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 747/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 69C

…e and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. 13.1 In Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. 13.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 161 Taxman 169 (SC) that the expression ‘the assessee offers no explanation’ means where the assessee…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Edmond Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 96/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 96/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata.............................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Edmond Finvest Pvt. Ltd....….........................Respondent (Earlier known as Edmond Textiles Pvt. Ltd.) [PAN: AAACE 6908 L] Appearances by: Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Akkal Dudhwewa…

ACIT Cir. 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manohar Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5222/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68

…pport of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction filed by the assessee except bank statement of few subscribers of the shares. The Assessing Officer, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) and 3 M/s Manohar Capital Markets Ltd Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). On further appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made under section 68 for share capital and restricted the disallowance for commission expenses to the extent of 10%, which works out to Rs.7,78,790/- and balance addition was deleted. Aggrieved, th…

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

…this regard, the respectfully reliance is placed on the following case laws: I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 38 Assessment Year: 2017-18 • K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) • A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Madras) • Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), • CIT, Faridabad v. Laul Transport Corporation, [2009] 180 Taxman 185 (Punjab & Haryana) 12.1 We also considered that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of sale of various items which had been held by the assessee as stock in trade and since the deposits in the bank account were out of sale of stock therefore the stock of th…

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

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

…address and mobile number of purchasers are not mentioned on the sale bills except a few. The assessee expressed his inability to provide these details of the parties. In view of these reasons and based on the decisions in the case of Roshan D Hatti Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 and P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 hold genuineness of the sales bills could not be verified and stated that all the bills are fabricated and self-made issued just before the deposition of the undisclosed cash of the assessee of Rs. 80,00,000/- on 15.11.2016 and the explanation offered by the assessee in this regard not found satisfactory and hence…