How many judgments cite Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO (49 ITD 177), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 69C, Section 132(4), Section 133(6).

Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO

49 ITD 177Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1994#2178 most cited

What is Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

When an assessee demonstrates corresponding sales, it establishes that goods must have been purchased, and therefore, a complete disallowance of purchases solely based on doubts about supplier genuineness is generally not warranted.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd v ITO · 49 ITD 177 · ITAT Mumbai · disallowance of purchases · bogus purchases · corresponding sales · genuineness of transactions · evidence of purchases · Section 37(1) deduction · Section 69 unexplained expenditure · bills not conclusive proof · sales without purchases

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 69A Section 148

Issues it is cited on

gaar section 194q explanation to section 37 section 158bb(1)retraction of statement principal officer section 158b(b)section 192 rejection of books of account section 158bb section 65b section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO

The DCIT1(1), Indore vs. Shri Ravi Arora, Indore

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…2 (Ahd.)(Trib) - CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P)Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) - G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT, 104 TTJ 809 (Mum)(Trib) - ITO v. Surana Traders, (2005) 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(Trib.) - Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. V. ITO, (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) Without prejudice to above total disallowance of salary and taxing Gross revenue is not justified. Attention is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT, (2005) 279 ITR 434 (S.C.) where it is held that it is a settled principle of income-tax law that it is the real income which is taxable under…

Ratn & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO -19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1981/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalratan & Co. 5 – Navyug Sagar, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aadfr3713J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400007. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 11.09.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering That The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ld. Assessing

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…t is fundamental accounting principal that once the sale is accepted than the purchase cannot be doubted. Reliance is placed in case of G.G. Diamond International v Dy. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mum.] (Trib.) and Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd vs. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 177 (Mum.) The quantity details and movement of goods is perfect tallied hence there is no defect 6 ITA No. 1981/Mum/2021- Ratan & Co. and mismatch in the books of accounts of the assessee. Reliance is placed on ITO, Ward 2(5), Rajkot v. Girish M. Mehta [2007] 105 ITD 585 (Rajkot.). The Ld. AO observed that the appellant has taken bogus purchase bi…

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

…that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings. 6.2.10 In such type of cases, reliance is often placed on a number of decisions including those in the cases of Nikunj Eximp in ITA No. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) to suggest that no addition could be made on account of disallowance of purchases. 6.2.11 Having gone through the above case laws, it is seen that in none of those cases so much of investigation was done including those by another Government authority, Viz., Maharashtra Sales Tax authority before whom affidavit was filed stating that only b…

ACIT. Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eipr India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 14ASection 69C

…006) 100 TTJ 464 (Ahd.) (Trib.) it was held addition under section 69 was not justified merely because suppliers could not be located and were not produced for examination 23 M/s. EIPR India Pvt. Ltd., ii. In Balaji Textile industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Mum.)(Trib.), it was held that there was no allegation or proof that the amount was received back by assessee. Sales were accepted ~ No sales can be made without purchases. Addition was deleted. iii. Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib.) The sales against purchases are not doubted. It is not the case of AO that amounts paid for…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3263/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and ShriFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Charudahry, CIT

Section 132

…urchases were not only supported by entries in books of accounts and stock registers but all such material purchase was represented by corresponding sales or those items were lying in the closing stock. In the case of BALAJI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.[1994] 49 ITD 177 (Bom) disallowance of purchases was made. However, the sales were accepted. The Hon’ble ITAT deleted the disallowance of purchases holding that no sales were likely to be effected if there were no purchases. A sale can be made only the goods are available with the seller. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka v…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3262/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and ShriFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Charudahry, CIT

Section 132

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

…es that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings. 5.2.9 In such type of cases, reliance is often placed on a number of decisions including those in the cases of NikunjEximp in ITA No. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) to suggest that no addition could be made on account of disallowance of purchases. 5.2.10 Having gone through the above case laws, it is seen that in none of cases so much of investigation was done including those by another Government authority, viz., Maharashtra Sales Tax authority before whom affidavit was filed stating that only bogus bi…

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

…s that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings. 6.2.8. In such type of cases, reliance is often placed on a number of decisions inck4ing those in the cases of Nikunj Eximp in ITA No. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) to suggest that no addition could be made on account of disallowance of purchases. 6.2.9. Having gone through the above case laws, it is seen that in none of those cases so much of investigation was done including those by another Government authority, viz., Maharashtra Sales Authority before whom affidavit was filed stating that only bogus…

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

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…manufactured by it out of purchases; b) Further, the supplier of the assessee are in existing business and has vast financial resources at their disposal;" Sales Tax department acknowledge that purchases are genuine. BALAJI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES P LTD v. ITO 49 ITD 177 (MUMBAI -ITAT) AO failed to discharge his duty to prove the transaction as bogus- ITO Vr. Permanand (2008 25 SOT 11), DCIT vrs. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil (Mum) Trib (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012 dated 20/08/2014). 32 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd Payments were made by account payee cheques. This fact would over shadow all other short…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hind Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Hind Industries Ltd. Circle 11(1) A-1, Phase-1, Okhla New Delhi Industrial Area New Delhi (Appellant) Aaach0870N (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

…as held in case of Sanchita Marine Products vs. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 290 (Mum). The Ld. AR further submitted that no sales can be made without purchases and hence cannot be a case of bogus purchases as held in case of Balaji Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Mum). The Ld. AR submitted that the case laws as relied by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. DR are distinct on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1, the CIT (A) has given a categorical finding that there is no exempt…

Prateek Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3861/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Prateek Gupta Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th New Harileela House Income Tax-Cc-4(2) Mint Road, Fort Mumbai, Air India Building 19Th Floor, Room No.1918, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaspg9494L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Prateek Gupta 6Th New Harileela House Income Tax-Cc-4(2) Mumbai, Air India Mint Road, Fort Building Mumbai – 400 001 19Th Floor, Room No.1918, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaspg9494L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib.)  DCIT v. Brahmaputra Steels (P) Ltd. 122 TAXMAN 32(GAUHATI)(MAG.)  Totaram Sharma vs. ITO Ward (AhmedabadTax Appeal No. 1344 of 2008 with Tax Appeal No. 1355 of 2008.)  Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. v. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 177 (ITAT Mumbai)  Asst. CIT-19(3) vs. M/s. Steel Line (India) (ITA No.1321/Mum/2016) (Mumbai Tribunal)  Suman Gupta vs. ACIT-12(1) (ITA No.4774/Mum/2014)(Mumbai Tribunal)  M/s. Geolife Organics vs. ACIT-23(2) (ITA No.3699/Mum/2016) (Mumbai Tribunal) 7 Shri Prateek Gupta 11. The. Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court i…

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

…148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (11) Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA no. 6727/Mum/2012 and CO no. 06/Mum/2014 (12) Nikunj Eximp (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 20 (Bom),. (13) Killick Nixon Ltd., vs DCIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 703 (Bom) (14) B.V vs. Union of India (2012) 204 Taxmann.com 408/ 17 Taxamann.com 202 (15) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1 (16) Mathuram Agar…

ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Saffron Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3063/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ito – 4(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Saffron Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., R.No.637, 6Th Floor 19/20, Gaiwadi Sadan Aayakar Bhavan 147, Dr. Veigas Street Mumbai-400 020 Near Ramvadi Post Office Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aajcs0360H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…brought to my notice that assessee has made the payments to the party from whom goods have been purchased. In this regard the Ld AR brought to my notice the decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Balaji Textiles Industries ltd v Third ITO 49 ITD 177 Mum 1994 wherein it is held as under : "We have examined the facts as brought on record by the appellant. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. In our opinion, issuing printed bills for selling the textile goods to the appellant at Bhiwandi is not a conclusive proof but it is a prima facie proof to…

M/S. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2045/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2045/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-5, Phase-Iii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7255J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ca & Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-24, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…han Chandan Khan and Party (1995) 52 TTJ (Jp) 203 (F) J.H. Metals vs. ITO (2001) 71 TTJ (Asr) (TM) 683 : (2001) 77 ITD 71 (Asr) (TM) (G) J.R. Solvent Industries vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd)(TM) 165 : (1999) 68 ITD 65 (CM) (TM) (H) Balaji Textiles (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (I) Dy. CIT vs. Brahmaputra Steels (P) Ltd. (2002) 76 TTJ (Gau) 447 4.1.7 The AR has submitted the following documents in support of the appellant's claim that the transaction of purchase of cement was genuine one. It has been submitted that these documents were also produced before the A.O. 1. Copy of ledger account in our books of account…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…, by collecting the ITO 49 ITD( 177 (Born) M-VAT Sales tax department acknowledge that purchases are genuine: 4 When Quantity tallied, No Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd v. 7 ITA No.1141/M/18- Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan addition can be made: ITO (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Bom) DCIT v. Adinath Industires (2001) : 252 ITR 476 (Guj) CIT v. M K Brothers (1987) : 163 ITR 249 (Guj) DCIT v. Adinath Industries (2001) : 247 ITR 35 DY.CIT V. BRAHMAPUTRA STEELS (P) LTD. [2002] 122 TAXMAN 32 (ITAT GAUHATI)]- 5 Purchase party not found but the Rajesh P Soni V/s ACIT 100 ITJ 892 sales against the purchase is (Ahd) accepted. Th…

Vaishali Prakash Muni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 378/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib.)  DCIT v. Brahmaputra Steels (P) Ltd. 122 TAXMAN 32(GAUHATI)(MAG.)  Totaram Sharma vs. ITO Ward (AhmedabadTax Appeal No. 1344 of 2008 with Tax Appeal No. 1355 of 2008.)  Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. v. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 177 (ITAT Mumbai) 10. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions in support of the contention that simply based on the information from Sales Tax department, AO cannot make addition without making further investigation to substantiate his allegation of bogus purchase. In all the said case law, It has been held that if assessee has provided q…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kamarhatty Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

ITA 2080/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…therefore such purchases cannot be held to be bogus. For that we rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. NangaliaFabrict (P) Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj) and in the case of Balaji Taxtile Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) (Trib) in these judgments, it was held that where purchases has been recorded in regular books of accounts maintained, purchases are supported by bills and vouchers, physical details regarding name address, PAN of the supplier, and payment were made through banking channel, therefore, such purchases cannot be held to be bogus. 6.8 We note t…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…details the department could not examine the correctness, reasonableness and genuineness of these purchases. As regards the decisions in the cases of DCIT v. Rajeev Kalathil (ITA no. 672/Mum/2012, ITAT Mumbai, Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) (Trib), CIT vs Smith P. Seth (2013), 38 Taxmann, 385, CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 0619 etc relied by the appellant for claiming that the payments have been made through banking channels and department had no evidence to prove that the beneficiaries have received back cash after deducting some commission, is also n…

Hemant R. Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result the assessee appeal is dismissed

ITA 178/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi Vs. Asst. Cit 16(2) R.No.210, 2Nd Floor D-502, Kukreja Palace Vallabh Baug Lane Matru Mandir, Extension-Ghatkopar (E) Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 075 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Aagps4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Cit 19(1) Vs. Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 411, Arihant Building, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad Street Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aagps4816C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi Vs. Asst. CIT 16(2) R.No.210, 2nd Floor D-502, Kukreja Palace Vallabh Baug Lane Matru Mandir, Extension-Ghatkopar (E) Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 075 Mumbai – 400 007 PAN/GIR No.AAGPS4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. CIT 19(1) Vs. Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 411, Arihant Building, 4th Floor, Ahmedabad Street Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 009 PAN/GIR No. AAGPS4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh A Thar Revenue by Ms.…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Faco Fastners P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

ITA 1641/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 6(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Faco Fastners Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Bhavan 196, Mutton Street M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 Null Bazar, 020 Mumbai – 400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aabcf2490D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…23. ITO Vs. A.CExport[13DTR98(Mum) 24. Unitex Products [22 SOT 429(Mum)], • 25. Teletronics Dealing System Pvt. Ltd. 53 Taxmann.com20(Mum)]. 26. Free India Assurance Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT(132 ITD 60) Mumbai Tribunal. 27. Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.[49 ITD 177 (Mum).] Therefore, since the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case here is identical to the above mentioned judicial orders, Ground of Appeal No.2 is allowed. 6. Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have considered rival contentions and found that the entire addition made by the AO has been deleted by CIT(A) by stating that the facts a…