Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

Basharat Saleem Rehtoo, Srinagar vs. DCIT, ACIT Cent. Circle, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

…appellant also does not submit any documentary evidence which proves that the cash intercepted is of the assessee’s business cash. I.T.A. No. 456/Asr/2024 8 Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 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 properly, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is o…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

…s to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 has held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of money or otherwise cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee. 9. In PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.c…

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

…s remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been 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 additions back into the income of the assessee. 28 BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI In the light…

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Cirl-1, Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…s remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been 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 additions back into the income of the assessee. 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI In the l…

The ITO Ward-1 (2) (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Khrajmal Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Rajkot

…s remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been 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 additions back into the income of the assessee. 28 BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI I find that…

Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot

…s remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been 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 additions back into the income of the assessee. 28 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Furthe…

Accrecent Way Marketing (P) Ltd., Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

…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…