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 366,470 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

Pradeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

25. As a result, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 937/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019, Passed By The Assessing Officer, As Regards Assessment Year 2017-18. That Appeal Came To Be Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 937/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Pradeep Jain cuke The DCIT, Vs. 1-B, Laxman Colony, Shyam Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPJ2548M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Avinash Khandelwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT lqu…

Radheshyam, Village Sevda, Ashta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 666/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 251Section 253Section 68

…e AO is necessary in the case where any cash deposits are found to be credited in the books of the appellant u/s 68 of the Act. As held in the assessment order, the appellant has furnished any explanation is. 6.2. In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stipulated that the onus of providing the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or of other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assesse…

Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1220/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…1 Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SM’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साविडया, माननीय लेखा सद" SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1220/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Purva, VS. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), PAN: AYDPP3100D Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) करदाताका"ितिनिध"/ : Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate Assessee Represented by राज"का"ितिनिध"/ : Smt V. Koteshwaramma, Sr. Department Repre…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…in regard to those questions under section 66(2). Those questions, therefore, could not be raised at this stage." In the instant case also, the assessee primarily relying on technical issues and effectively has nothing to say on merits of the case. 13. [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT “Now, 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. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…n. The Assessing Officer, in disbelieving the assessee's explanation, and in making the aforesaid addition, placed reliance on the cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others vs. CIT, Bihar & Orissa 1964 AIR 697 for the proposition that the onus was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of money found to have been received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer placed further reliance on the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 I…

Anandmangal Investment and Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

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

ITA 4166/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…that there was no denial of principles of natural justice if witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined by assessee". 6.2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) has 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. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of…

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2032/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Maloo, AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

…g as to the eligibility of any person for availing any loan. 5.2.7 It is trite that the onus is on the appellant to explain any entry found in his books of accounts for this proposition law has been laid by Hon. Supreme Court In Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), wherein it was held that the onus of proving the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him, if he disputes, it is not liable to tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation and in the absence of such proof the revenue is entitled to treat it as ta…

Pavan Kumar Bhagat, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Sahara

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

…I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pavan Kumar Bhagat. through judicial pronouncements in the cases of i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC), ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), iii Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), iv. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC), v. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC). The assessee had stated that he had e-filed his return declaring total income of ₹7,54,620/-. He also held that the return filed on 24.05.2018 could not be considered as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and a…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 602/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/s. Rudra Buildwell Homes DCIT, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi PAN: AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising out of ITA No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Rudra Buildwell Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida PAN: AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, ITP Department by Sh.…

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 37Section 68

…him to showeither that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under theprovisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat itas taxable income". (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found tohave been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him toshow either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxationunder the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof,…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 488/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Peeyush Agarwal The ITO, Vs. 197, Johari Bazar, Ward-1(5), Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKZPA9803G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. & Shri Gulshan Agarwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CI…

Surajgovind Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1186/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: him and explaining relevant entries in their books of accounts. Needless to say, none of the investors appeared before the Ld. AO in response to such summons. These factors prompted the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition which duly gave credit to amounts shown against two non-resident investors viz. Ms. Pushpa Patel and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Rajivbhai Patel.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…e Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking…

Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 984/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.984/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ A/1-1, Madhav Apartment Circle 2(1)(1) V/S. Opp. Municipal Garden Ahmedabad – 380 015 Vasna Ahmedabad – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Amppp 5605 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…reliance on several judicial precedents, including Chuharmal vs. CIT (172 ITR 250), Smt. Srilekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1964 AIR 697), Smt. S. Sakunthala Sivan (Madras High Court, 2022), K.V. Mathew vs. ITO (Kerala High Court, 2014), and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (2 SCC 378), to hold that unexplained cash deposits and receipts, when not satisfactorily explained, are liable to be taxed as deemed income under section 69A and section 69, respectively, and subject to the special rate under section 115BBE. Ultimately, the CIT(A) upheld the AO’s additions and dismissed the appeal in toto. Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel vs. ACIT…

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

…nly the identity of the creditors but also the capacity of the creditors to advance money, and establish the genuineness of those transaction. The initial onus of proof lies on the assessee. The decision in Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1977] 2 SCC 378 was referred to wherein it was held that if the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation the assessing officer would be justified in making the addition back into the income of the assessee. 23. The decision in N.R. Portfolio Private Limited was quoted with approval wherein it has been held that creditworthi…

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Rudramukhi Vintrade Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 136/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ered necessary by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the judicial pronouncements in the cases mentioned below: i) CIT v. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iii) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly concluded as under: “7.4 It is therefore obligatory on the part of the assessee that it explains the nature and source of credits in its books of accounts out of which the cash deposits were made in the bank account. However, in the instant case, the assessee…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Minto Park Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

ITAT/4/2025HC Calcutta01 Aug 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…e Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers, and ascertain whether 16 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 17 [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) ITAT NO. 4 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 19 of 22 the transaction is genuine, or these are bogus entries of name- lenders. (iii) If the inquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit- worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In…

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None

Section 68

…hammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon by [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon by [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon…

Mohd. Naushad Ansari (Prop. Gulsan Sev Foods), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

…n hand. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the assessee’s explanation, observing that the assessee failed to explain the sources of the said cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Relying on judicial precedents including Roshan D. Hathi v. CIT (107 ITR 938) and Kelekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1), the AO held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.28,54,000/- treating it as unexplained cash credit. The said amount was taxed under section 115BBE of the Act, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were separately initiated. 3…