Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri

74 ITD 92Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#10117 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

colourable deviceaccommodation entrysection 131genuineness of the transactionassistant commissionersection 68transferpersonindiacompanydocumenttotal income

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25(3), MUMBAI vs. SPAN ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4258/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya, DR
Section 40A(3)

…tax of law is that if substance attracts tax, the form can be ignored by the tax collector. Further, I collector. Further, In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income n the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of…

M/S. KOPRAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -7(1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 133Section 143Section 68

…y as unreal. In McDowell and Co. vs CTO(1985)154 ITR 148(SC) the position of law is that if substance attracts tax, the form can be ignored by the tax collector. Further, In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchases, held that ; "Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the firm. In the case of Homi Jehang…

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate 21 A.Y.2012-13 should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law." 6.2.21 In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchases, held as under: "Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of…

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…rities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law." 41 4.13. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax v Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri „ [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of HAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchase, held as under:- “Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…te authorities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law.” 5.2.20 In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon‟ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchases, held as under: “Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of…

ITO 8 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHAIRAV STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 148

…ties does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law.” 6.2.17 6.2.17. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhovanclas Bhimji Zaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchases, held as under: ."Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-Jinn. In the case o…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…vs. CIT (2008) 299 ITR 324 (Raj.) (23) CIT vs. La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (24) Indian Woolen Carpet Factory vs. ITAT (2002) 125 Taxman 763 (Raj.) (25) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) 38 ACIT vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92 (Mum). (27) Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (28) T. Devashaya Nadar vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.) (29) R. S Dass vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 593. (30) Chairman, Board of Mining Examination vs. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965. (31) GTC Industries Ltd., vs ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380 (Bom.). (32) SBI vs. S.K Sharma AIR 1996 SC 364 (33) Bholana…

ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BABULAL U MUNOT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…authorities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at 3 particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law." 2.4.22 In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-V. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchases, held as under: "Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assesses-firm, in the case of…

KAVIRAJ CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…authorities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law." 2.519 In the case of Assistant Commissioner of income-tax v. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92(MUM.), Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of TAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to better the claim of purchases, held as under: Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of Homi…

ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAILESH L. CHHEDA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4566/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Shri Shailesh Lakhamshi Room No.219, Chheda, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Shop No.04, Narayan Vs. Mumbai-400007 Buildg. S.V. Road, Opp. Central Bank, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacpc0733G Shri B.S. Bist-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Shri Shailesh Lakhamshi Room No.219, Chheda, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Shop No.04, Narayan Vs. Mumbai-400007 Buildg. S.V. Road, Opp. Central Bank, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AACPC0733G Shri B.S. Bist-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by NONE 20/…

KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -23(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…te authorities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law.” 7.21 In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchase, held as under: “Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of H…