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 367,154 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

One Point Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(3), Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 473/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 One Point Commercial Pvt. Ito, Wad 6(3), Ltd. Kolkata Vs 40/4, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Acvpj4013F) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & MsFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT

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

…ocedure stated under the Act adhering to which one can prove the nature and source of such sum but in the past Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the land mark judgment of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan-Di-Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 laid 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 creditworthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Sec…

Jiten Dhiraj Furia, Mumbai vs. Addl- JCIT (A)-1 Delhi, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3967/MUM/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 69

…ces issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the AO. It is a settled principle of law that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the core of Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT, 107 ITR 938. The appellant failed to discharge such onus Hence, the contention of the appellant that the Assessing Officer erred in adding back the loan amount received only on the ground that the loan creditors have not responded to the notices u/s 133(6) is factually incorrect as This AQ added back the amounts of loan on account of failure of the appellant…

Nitin Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…NDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More 6 [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income- tax v. P. Mohanakala 7 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax 8 [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax 9 [2016] 66 taxmann.com 288 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera 10 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2019 Tax Case Appeal No. 128 of 2019 And C.M.P.No. 3353 of 2019 Smt. Tharakumari Appellant Vs. The Income T…

Crystal Glazing & Cladding, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 93/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…proceedings. This ground is therefore, dismissed. 5.7 Ground no. 6: This ground fails for want of production of the books of account or any documentary evidence at the time of regular assessment and in the present proceedings in Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). 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 taxable in…

Shankar Traders & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 199/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1st Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [PAN: AADCS8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Revenue by: Shri Susanta Saha, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hea…

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

…pon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: 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) iii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) iv. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) {Learned CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant extracts from the orders which are not being reproduced here} 7.5 From a careful perusal of the above decisions, it is established that primary onus to prove the source of the money and necessary e…

Zula Merchandisc Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

…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 inv…

Silverlake Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 379/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…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…

Tara Soni, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 13/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

…e considered objectively and the explanation given cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient grounds, on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. Sona Electric Co v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 507 (Del.); Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC). - 29. Unless any evidence, direct or indirect, is brought to the fore by the ld. AO which showed that the sale proceeds of shares so received actually belonged to the assessee, no addition can be made to the income of the assessee merely on suspicion. Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shubh…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 99/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e of “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 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…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 100/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…ipur 20-21 Bench) 6. CIT vs. R.S. Rathore[1996] 86 Taxman 20(High Court of Rajasthan)212 ITR 390 22-24 7. CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. [2011] 9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi) (High Court 25-34 of Delhi)[333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] 8. Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (Supreme Court of India) 35-43 9. Shankar Industries vs. CIT[1978] 114 ITR 689(High Court of Calcutta) 44-47 10. Hari Chand Virendra Pal Vs. CIT (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) [1982]11 48-50 Taxman 134 /140 ITR 148 11. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik[1986]26 Taxman 324 (SC)/[1986] 160 ITR 674(SC) 51-59 12. Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs.CIT, 93 Ta…

Divya Agrofood Product Private Limited, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

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

ITA 851/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 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). The appellant has failed and therefore the grounds hold no merit and are dismissed. 3.5 It is true that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] an…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…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 the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as 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 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 the absence of such pro…

Shobna Agarwal, Ajmer Road Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 226/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 226/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear :2017-18 Shobna Agarwal, ACIT, Vs. Opp. Hathroi School, Ajmer Circle-02, Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:ABRPA 9506 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Sh. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. A. S. Nehra, A…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…make it mandatory on his part to deal with the investment as income of the assessee as soon as the latter's explanation happened to be rejected. On that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del)…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

Elegant Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with Ground No

ITA 51/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 131Section 14ASection 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…