Babulal C. Borana v. ITO

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…ed purchase bills/vouchers-Appellant has filed details of suppliers and their sales-tax numbers- Payments were made through banking channels-Sales against these purchases are not doubted-Hence, addition cannot be sustained. ➤ Babulal C. Borana VS. ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251 (Bom.) It was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that "When the identity of the person form whom goods are purchased and source of investment made has been explained by the assessee, and it was established that amounts paid by M/s Grace Development Associates. Mumbai. assessee by cheque for those goods had been received, and further, books mai…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HI-TECH ENGINEERS , MUMBAI

In the result, both revenue’s appeal and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 08/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafh0253L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) C.O. 8 & 9 /Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/s. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19th Floor, Room No. 3, 4th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2023 Arising out of I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ DCIT, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19th Vs. 477/4…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUR GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…ts from exports etc. The ld. AR, therefore, submitted that no addition is required to be made. In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions : CIT v/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) 372 ITR 619 Babulal Borana v/s ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) PRI. CIT vs. MOHOMMAD HAJI ADAM & CO. & ORS. 104 CCH 0391 Mum HC Prin.CIT v/s Chawla Interbild Construction Pvt Ltd. 412 ITR 152 (Bom) 17. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that since the addition was made by the AO and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) by ignoring the fact that no cross examination was allowed of the party Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain a…

SUR GEMS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…ts from exports etc. The ld. AR, therefore, submitted that no addition is required to be made. In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions : CIT v/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) 372 ITR 619 Babulal Borana v/s ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) PRI. CIT vs. MOHOMMAD HAJI ADAM & CO. & ORS. 104 CCH 0391 Mum HC Prin.CIT v/s Chawla Interbild Construction Pvt Ltd. 412 ITR 152 (Bom) 17. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that since the addition was made by the AO and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) by ignoring the fact that no cross examination was allowed of the party Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain a…

VAGHASIYA EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Vaghasiya Exports, Pr. Cit-32, C-11, Bharat Diamond Bourse, 2Nd Floor, Ae-2080, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (E), Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafv 2061Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad-In-Law & Liable To Be Quashed 1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Issuing Notice U/S.263 Of The Act Based Upon The Proposal Received From Ito / Jt. Cit & Not By Suo-Moto Examination Of Records & Application Of Mind & Thus, The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Are Carried Out Upon The Directions Of Ito / Jt. Cit Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Sec. 263 Of The Act & Hence, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Vaghasiya Exports, Pr. CIT-32, C-11, Bharat Diamond Bourse, 2nd Floor, AE-2080, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (E), Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 PAN: AAAFV 2061Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K. Shivram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 O R D E R…

ANIL K SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah (Huf), The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aadha5072M (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah, The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aapps6042M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jernold Michel (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020

…tablish the genuineness of transaction of purchases, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the other evidences placed on record by the assessee. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Babulal C Borana vs. Third ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom), the Ld. counsel submitted that merely because the suppliers are listed as defaulters under the sales tax laws, it cannot be a ground for disallowance of those purchases. The Ld. counsel further contended that there is no evidence to support that payment made through bank was received back in cash. The Ld. counsel further placing reliance o…

ACIT-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VGC DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

…appellate proceedings, Ld. AR argued that merely on the basis of suspicion, no addition could be made and even the said Rajendra Jain had retracted his statement. Ld.AR has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Babulal C. Borana - 282 ITR 251 where it was held that amounts could not be added as undisclosed investment only because the vendor denied the transaction. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble 9 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd ITAT. Mumbai in the case of Raieev G Kalathil in ITR 6727/M/2012 dated 20-08-2014. Ganpat A Sanqhvi in ITR 2826/M/2013 and Rarnjl…

ACIT-21(1), MUMBAI vs. ANILKUMAR NANDLAL VERMA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1882/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-21(1) बिधम/ Anilkumar Nandlal Verma R. No.116 1St Floor Piramal International Steel Fabricator Vs. Chambers Parel, Mumbai- 36 Evergreen Estate Shakti 400012. Mill Lane, Mumbai-400011. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapv7748N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Umesh Vishwakarma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1882/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT-21(1) बिधम/ Anilkumar Nandlal Verma R. No.116 1st Floor Piramal International Steel Fabricator Vs. Chambers Parel, Mumbai- 36 Evergreen Estate Shakti 400012. Mill Lane, Mumbai-400011. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAPV7748N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Michael Jerald (DR) Assessee by: Shri Umesh Vishwakarma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /D…

PRATAP N. RAJGOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G Manjunatha

…2018 Pratap N. Rajgor Hon’ble Apex Court reported in PCIT VS Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxman.com 325 (SC). The Ld.AR also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Babulal C Borana vs Third Income Tax Officer [(282 ITR 251) (Bom)]. In alternative submissions the learned AR for the assessee submits that in the recent decision the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Versus M Haji Adam & Co in ITA No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11th February 2019 held that addition in respect of bogus purchases is to be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases…

ANMOL INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

…peal for AY 2009-10 are reproduced hereunder:- A) BINDING PRECEDENT 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts in not following binding precedents in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) & Babulal C.Borana (282 ITR 251 (Bom) (HC) & Bombay tribunal judgments quoted in written submission before CIT(A). B) ASSESSMENT BASED ON SUSPICION & ON SURMISES 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to confirm action of A.O. on the basis of conjunction, suspicion & surmises. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts that when the books being not rejected &…

SHAH TEHCHNICAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

…d and sales were accepted and thus the entire purchases could not be disallowed and the order of Ld. CIT(A) deserved to be quashed. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions in support of his argument which are as under: 1. Babulal C. Borana vs. ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251 (Bom.) CIT vs. 2. CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.-HC) 3. CIT vs. Smt. Anju Jindal (2016) 387 ITR 418 (P&H) High Court. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of authorities below by submitting that the genuineness of the purchase of material was in doubt as all the parties have denied t…

ASST CIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RADIANT GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-25(3), M/S Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6Th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aajfr3662E Co No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4146/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Radiant Gems, Acit-25(3), 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Room No.601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aajfr3662E

…(ITA No.6341/Mum/2016) iv. ITO vs Deepak Popotlal Gala (ITA No.5920/Mum/2013) v. ACIT vs G.V. Sons (ITA No.2239/Mum/2012 & ITA No.2240/Mum/2012, ITA No.2238/Mum/2012) vi. Rakesh Kumar & Co. vs ACIT (ITA No.2959/Mum/2014) vii. Babulal C. Boranvas vs ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251(Bom.) C.O. No.153/Mum/2018 M/s Radiant Gems viii. CIT vs Hi Lux Automotive P. Ltd. (2009) 183 taxman 260 (Del.) ix. CIT vs Nikunj Exmip Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5604 of 2010) (Bom.) x. CIT vs M. K. Brothers (1987) 30 taxmann 547(Guj.) 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of a…